Letters to the editor for Jan. 18

Olympia’s mitigation site isn’t viable for everyone

As the City of Olympia moves forward with its plan to sweep the Fourth Avenue Bridge encampment on Jan. 27, they are citing the mitigation site as an appropriate alternative for the residents. It is not. While there are street community members who do feel safer and more stable at the site, for many it remains a hostile, volatile environment unfit for safety, recovery, stability and humane living.

From the beginning, it was not set up for success. It was not designed with the goal of creating the safest, healthiest, most stable legal campsite for unsheltered people. Rather, it was designed, above all else, with the goal to move as many people as possible into one space. A camp of 100 people continues to be unmanageable, with ineffective planning, accountability, and supervision and it fails to follow policies and procedures. High-ranking city officials have admitted to this fact privately.

It has become a holding area for people swept from camps, with admission and discharge decided in an arbitrary and inequitable manner. Unfortunately for many of our most vulnerable, the site feels like a prison camp where they continue to be traumatized, victimized and isolated, making recovery from life-threatening health conditions and addiction impossible.

We can do better -- the staff and mayor simply refuse to do so. Instead, they turn to the same failed strategies. Until the mayor and city leadership work with community partners and make improvements, the mitigation site remains an unworkable alternative for many.

Governor’s homelessness plan must be strategic

Gov. Inslee’s budget proposing funding to address homelessness is encouraging. However, the expenditures should come from the state’s operating budget, rather than emergency reserves as proposed. This is a long-term issue, rather than a one-time emergency.

It will be important for the Legislature to approve and define how these monies are spent. Competitive grants should be made to local governments that form regional partnerships, with priority given to those partnerships that include the county in the region.

The grants should require contracting with non-profit agencies and the private sector for the construction and operation of temporary shelters and permanent housing. It should require amendments to codes to allow tiny homes, streamline regulations and approval processes so that a decision can be obtained within 60 days.

Additionally, area-wide environmental analysis should be completed in advance by the local governments, as opposed to requiring project by project environmental review by the applicants. Other grant requirements should include reduction or elimination of utility connection charges and impact fees, local match with land or other local funding, and limitation of administrative costs to no more than 10%.

Separate funding should also be set aside for large, medium and small communities located in different parts of the state. Addressing this complex issue requires a strategic plan and targeted funding.

This story was originally published January 18, 2020 at 1:00 PM.