Over the years, I’ve learned that managing my expectations is a helpful way to keep me calm and minimize disappointment.
Having a reasonable understanding of what might result from everything from a family visit to a business negotiation, from a legal process to a trip to the doctor, allows us to predict what might happen so we can be prepared, reducing disappointment and frustration.
Having an understanding of what is planned for the homeless camps can have the same effect, allowing us to know what’s coming, what we can expect as a community. From talking to city staff, we understand that they consider the homeless camps to be temporary. OK, then, what’s the plan? What does temporary mean? How do we get there? What should we expect? Since we agree that the camps are temporary what does that mean for us? Will they be here another six months? Will we have them another year? Two years? What is the timeline for removing them? What are the conditions to meet to move or close the camps? Is there a priority for which camp to close first?
Obstacles regarding closing encampments
There are definite obstacles that we need to overcome in order to close or move the camps. Take Ensign Road for example. We could just tell people to leave, but do we then use staff to chase RVs around the county herding them from one spot to another? This may not be practical. There doesn’t seem to be much desire to try this path, and it could cascade into other problems. It appears that to move the vehicles we need a place to move them to. Many need to be towed, the cost of any option falls on local government, and they still need a place to tow them to.
Olympia tried once to close the Ensign Road RV camp and was told by the Washington Attorney General they legally couldn’t. The Thurston County Regional Housing Council tried to find a location earlier in the year but was unable to. That inability to find a site resulted in the Scattered Sites program , enabling the city and county to address conditions at some camps as well as provide intervention & services.
Now the Housing Council is working on another location that will at least take some of the RVs. There is much public opposition to the site: It isn’t large enough for all the vehicles, and the council may not be successful. Which leaves us right back where we started.
If a criterion for closing the camps is to create some amount of shelter and housing, how much do we need to close a camp?
What goals can we expect to see set about housing the unhoused?
There are hundreds of unsheltered people living in and around Olympia. Can we expect to build or provide enough public, low-cost housing for everyone? I think not. If not, what is our intent, our measurable objective concerning housing? How many units of what type are we going to build? What about the process? Do we keep providing housing and then wait to see what happens, or do we decide upon a level of service where once we have a specified amount of housing and shelter we say “that’s it, that’s as far as we go” as a community to deal with this national crisis.
We know our local governments are trying several programs to address homelessness and the camps, including cleaning sites, building shelters, building and funding transitional low-cost housing, and funding caseworkers and interventionists to go into the camps. What we don’t know is how this will play out. For instance, in Olympia’s One Community Plan, their vision and work plan on dealing with homelessness, they say they will “Prevent and remove new encampments before they establish”. How does that apply to on-street parking and the continuing influx of RVs on the streets? The municipal code does not allow RVs to park on the street longer than 24 hours (Section 10.16.030), so when will the city resume enforcing those codes? Are there some criteria they are waiting for, or consequences they are avoiding?
We also know that the unintended consequences of some of our prior choices have led to our current status and we need to acknowledge that. We can’t go back and change the past, but need to be aware of possible consequences; we can’t simply make a pronouncement or demand without looking at the potential results, which may be worse than the problem we’re trying to solve. All municipal actions must consider the resulting economic, personnel and resource costs of enforcing any policy, and that can be substantial. If we close a camp, where do those people go? Downtown? Into neighborhoods? Then what do we do, use the police and Crisis Response team (CRU) to move them somewhere else? Then will we need more police and CRU? The response must be comprehensive, plus we must be willing to enforce any decisions we make and allocate the required resources.
Answers to these questions must come from whoever is in control of the camp locations. Some of the camps are on Olympia property like Ensign Road. The state controls the Wheeler camp and sites by the freeway, and the camp on Deschutes Parkway and part of “the jungle” are on private land where the owners dictate what to do. The cities do not have the ultimate authority in all cases, nor does the county, but each has to be a willing partner. They are the ones with the resources to actually make things happen
We all know this is a difficult, complex problem that is not completely in our control, and it’s complicated by the fact that we’re really dealing with people including children, not inanimate objects, and we are a compassionate, generous community. What is certain is that having clear expectations of what our elected representatives, their staff, and other landowners, are planning -- including a timeline -- will help calm all of us, something we could surely use.
Pat Cole - pcbiglife@gmail.com - is a former member of Olympia's city council. As a private citizen, he seeks to set a positive tone and lead informed discussion about local civic issues.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The opinions expressed above are those of Pat Cole and not necessarily The JOLT.
Further, if you'd like to express your opinions, please write them up and send to us, especially if you are focused on Lacey or Tumwater. If you've got questions about what would be acceptable, please call Danny Stusser on 360-357-1000 x1.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
AugieH
The misquote from the 1989 film FIELD OF DREAMS is popularly “If you build it they will come.” Providing amenities for the houseless will only attract more, especially in our Marine Temperate climate. I expect the numbers of such to increase, and my only hope is that city governments and home owners will strictly enforce “No Trespassing” restrictions on the properties of the latter and law enforcement vigorously crack down on property crimes. Unfortunately, in this age of permissiveness seemingly buttressed by progressive lawmakers and court decisions, I don’t expect much in either case. My only consolation at the moment is that I moved from someplace worse – California. But, hey, how bad can it get?
Thursday, November 11, 2021 Report this
jlongley
Pat,
Thanks again for a calm, reasoned overview of the out-of-control situation in Olympia and Thurston County with uncontrolled encampments and rampant parking and sleeping on the streets. I like the way you're able to draw together assessments of what *has* been done by government agencies, and what needs *yet* to be done. As per your usual, you pose numerous questions about where to go from here. It seems obvious to me, that in the case of the City of Olympia in particular, and its permissive Council, that what is sorely lacking is good communication with the electorate. What's being done, what comes next, and what is a template for solving the mess we have on our streets, in our woods, and even on the route to the region's major hospital? We are sorely lacking solid, decisive leadership that is open & transparent. Thurston County and the Cities of Lacey and Tumwater have yet to dip their toes into the pool and get busy to solve this regional blight on our communities. In my opinion, Olympia has all along been the jurisdiction assumed to be the one to solve every regional issue/problem. Lacey and the County, get over your nimby outlooks and get busy solving this seemingly intractable regional problem.
Friday, November 12, 2021 Report this
jhender
What we are currently practicing relative to unhoused people with mental health/addiction disorders isn't compassion, it's enabling. From the University of Pennsylvania Health System:
Enabling Behaviors, What are They?
Enabling behaviors are those behaviors that support our addicted loved one's chemical use. By not allowing the addicted person to accept the consequences for their actions…by providing the pillow each time they stumble or fall…we are enabling their chemical use.
Denial — Expecting the alcoholic or drug addict to be rational or to be able to control their use is denial. Accepting blame for their use is denial. My addict isn't like those "bums on the street." He goes to work every day, a responsible person. Is he really responsible…or are we just picking up the pieces?
Using with the addict or alcoholic — So we can watch them, limit their intake, make sure they don't drive drunk. We don't have to worry about where they are, who they're with, if they're coming home.
Justification — Agreeing with their rationalizations — got a stressful job so he/she deserves two martinis after work.
They're in college — everybody does it. I did it and I'm not an alcoholic.
Keeping feelings inside — The addict's rationalizations deny our feelings — "Oh, I would never drink with the kids in the car." We get our feelings of fear denied and we begin to keep our feelings inside.
Avoiding problems — We keep the peace, take care of problems so we don't upset anyone.
Minimizing the situation — It's not so bad…things will get better when…
Protecting — Protecting their image with co-workers and friends…while we protect our own image.
Avoiding — We tranquilize our feelings with medication, work, food, exercise. The more perfectly decorated and manicured our home and lawn are, the better we look and we don't have to look at the issues.
Blaming, criticizing, lecturing — Did it ever stop the addict from using? They turn it around and blame us. I don't need to listen to this. I'm outta here.
Taking over responsibilities — He's hung over so I'll take out the trash, cut the grass, etc.
Feeling superior — Treating the addict like a child.
Controlling — You can't see your friend, he's a bad kid. You can't have any money. As co-dependents we grab onto anything we can control because the rest of our life is so unmanageable.
Enduring — If I can just be patient, things will get better. Or God will take care of it.
Providing free housing for all unhoused people is a good first step on a path to wellness and modification of anti-social behavior. The path to wellness should be the goal, not merely warehousing human beings.
Saturday, November 13, 2021 Report this