Letters to the editor for March 20

Vagrants on private property

Once again, Olympia city government has missed the mark. The 9th Circuit Court ruling it is illegal to criminally charge vagrants for sleeping in a public area has been incorrectly interpreted. Our “showcase” low-barrier mitigation site and low-barrier tiny house program are not where most vagrants are located.

Low-barrier camps have worked as a short-term solution in other cities. but in Olympia it has become a long-term cesspool of drug dealing, prostitution, and thievery. No ID is needed, nick names are fine. This lowest barrier to shelter only works by assisting those who need housing, separating those hiding behind the homelessness issue.

Vagrant camps can be on private property. City code enforcement has refused to enforce the law at the camp between Martin Way and Pacific Avenue. Much of the camp known as “The Jungle” is on two private properties owned by JJP Group and the Bourgault family.

Illegal camps are popping up all over, especially by the freeway for easy human trafficking and movement of drugs down the 1-5 corridor. Let the city council know how you feel.

Not Sanders ever

David Brooks’ column should be on your front page! He is the most level-headed columnist around. This should be a warning, likened to COVID-19 precautions: Not Sanders EVER!

Cities are for people

I take issue with spending excessive amounts of money to preserve urban landscape as marginal wildlife habitat. I speak in particular of the West Bay Woods property recently removed from development. My take is a couple million dollars have been spent to preserve a few acres of habitat because some great blue herons had recently nested there. That same money could have bought a square mile of landscape outside Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) that would have functional value to wildlife populations rather than just postage-stamp protection.

Sure, herons are big, noticeable birds that everyone relates too, but they are far from needing help to stick around. Blue heron populations are robust and abundant, meaning there are plenty of them and they have no trouble making more. Eliminating housing for humans within UGBs to protect the nesting of a bird species as common as a crow is nuts. Cities are where people are supposed to live so they don’t destroy habitat outside UGBs where native wildlife should occur.

Now, I understand the legacy of preserving undeveloped landscapes within urban environments to mitigate our developed world, but within UGBs this needs to be done with an eye towards what is best for us, not native wildlife. West Bay Woods is not a Priest Point, Grass Lake or Watershed Park. It is a place where people can’t go in the spring or summer.

Just like urban development should not occur outside of UGBs, native wildlife habitat preservation should not occur within them.