Council Legislation

Ordinance No. O2024-538

Title: An Emergency Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Adopting Interim Amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 17C.30, "International Residential Code," Chapter 18.25, "Definitions," and Chapter 18A.38, "Temporary Development," to Fulfill an Immediate Need for Emergency Shelter for Unsheltered Residents of Pierce County; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Declaring an Emergency.

Status: Defeated

Sponsors: Councilmembers Ryan Mello, Robyn Denson, Jani Hitchen

Final votes

July 9, 2024
Nay Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Jean P Ross 7/4/24 8:41 AM I do not support the proposed tent city and hope my council member and others vote this down.
Mike Matteson 7/4/24 9:37 AM This is not the answer. If we are going to spend this money start by spending it on Mental Health and addition. Look at King county program is a disaster. Look at Thurston county they have drug motels from thier homeless programs. Solve the real problem not the symptom
Jonathan Anderson 7/4/24 11:04 AM I strongly oppose this proposed ordinance. Using our tax dollars to build more encampments is not a sustainable solution. We have seen this approach fail in cities like Seattle and Tacoma, leading to increased issues rather than resolving them. We should focus on cleaning up encampments and providing long term solutions. This proposed ordinance is not the answer and will only exacerbate the problem.
Mike Riches 7/5/24 3:36 PM This proposal solves nothing, it has not worked anywhere it has been implemented. We should be cleaning up encampments not building more. Protect our neighborhoods. Vote NO on the proposed ordinance 02024-538! We don't need a tent city!! Please protect our neighborhoods!
Elizabeth Isbell 7/5/24 6:53 PM I DO NOT support this proposal. This type of legislation has proven to be disastrous in other counties. Clean up what we have now and focus on mental health. This would be dangerous for our children and community members, would cause more rampant drug problems, and ultimately more crime. VOTE NO!!!!
Michelle Ash 7/5/24 7:44 PM I do not support this proposal. Vote no.
Carol A. Krona 7/5/24 8:55 PM NO to proposed "emergency" Ordinance 02024-538!! Tax dollars MUST NOT be used to create more tent cities in our communities and neighborhoods!! Instead, attack the root cause of homelessness, such as bad government policies that bring unvetted illegal aliens, drugs & trafficking into our state. Misguided policies such as these and others overwhelm the resources of Pierce County, State and our Nation, which seems fairly obvious to any thinking citizen. Declaring a societal problem an "emergency" is just the easy way around normal procedures or laws and a way to establish more power/control to continue doing so. And for heaven's sake, put these issues to a 2/3 majority vote instead of you representatives unilaterally subjecting the citizenry to this preposterous agenda item. NO on 02024-538!
Jim Hagman 7/5/24 9:56 PM Ordinance No. 02024-538. You are willing to destroy your constituents neighborhoods for .2% of the population. Vote NO. Unless you are willing to be the first to have one of these encampments setup in your neighborhood you need to vote NO. Have you seen what happens in these encampments and how ugly and rundown they are? Look at Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. You are supposed to be representing the majority of the people in your district, not a minority. Many homeless need treatment and changing their environment does not change their mind and heart.
Kip Clinton 7/6/24 2:27 AM I have grave concerns with how rapidly this proposal has come about. It seems to have been initiated on July 2 at the Council Study Session, it next appeared in the July 3 Full Council Consent Agenda for final approval the following week during the July 9 full Council meeting. Ramrodding a proposal of this magnitude through in the period of ONE WEEK is the antithesis of sufficient public notice. It's as though the Council is afraid the general public will disapprove of these changes to County Code. Follow previous examples regarding County Code changes--at least send it through the LUAC, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner process for public review/comment and potential refinement.
John price 7/6/24 7:29 AM I oppose this proposal. Do not spend our precious tax dollars on emergency encampments/shelters. Our tax dollars should be used to clean up these areas not invite more. Funds should be used to help address the problem of mental health and drug addiction. Do NOT pass this proposal!
Ken Patnude 7/6/24 7:39 AM The costs to my family far outweigh any benefits this proposal could possibly provide. The examples of these unconstitutional work arounds to due process are the epitome of poorly thought out and contrived failure. Not one of the solutions provided within this proposal are anything but enabling behaviors. They all pass the costs of administrating(which is the biggest failure) down to the little guy raising a family. Taking food and opportunities away from them. Causing them to move away hoping for a better environment for they're loved ones if for no other reason like affordability. Stop. Cease and desist! You politicians operate on a limited contract with the people that support this country of ours! Start supporting the people paying into this ideology, not the people living off of the ideology! Freeloaders,entitlement, systemic failures. I cannot help others they must be able to help themselves. That is why mental health, followed up with skills development and training must be a leading part of any solution. If our system (political) can't get on board with its constituents it might be time to replace them all. Stop the insanity of supporting those that won't support themselves!
Penny Ostrander 7/6/24 10:09 AM This is not an emergency. The homeless have been on our streets since they have been bussed to our state from other states for years. It’s time to find innovative long term solutions to this issue and not turn to the tax payer for another bandaid solution that solves nothing. The taxpayer is tired of paying for solutions that WE know don’t work. I am asking for a no vote from this council. We are watching!
Marilyn Martinetto 7/6/24 12:05 PM I strongly oppose. Before Biden-Obama began purposely ignoring Immigration laws, our schools, jails & mental health centers became overwhelmed due to specific choices made by illegals, drug addicts & mentally ill when they chose to travel to given locations for the most goodies to be gotten & to amass filth everywhere as they took advantage of LEGAL residents. Ignoring Law begets more law breaking and more corruption as others take note. Marxism divides by taking FROM people who work to give to the people who wasted time NOT interested in school, Not learning a LEGAL SKILL, thus becoming a burden on others & worthless.
Linda Miley 7/6/24 2:44 PM Building emergency tent cities is giving up. Helping the homeless hide their drug use inside a tent doesn’t make it go away and solves nothing. The major reason people are homeless is due to their addiction of drugs, alcohol and mental illness. Everyone understands this! Help them recover by building a real solution that is more compassionate and has a chance of working. Invest in their well being with programs to help them get off the streets.
Keith Lerew 7/6/24 3:48 PM Since when is enabling a problem preferable to solving a problem. Especially since anywhere you house, (create a tent city), for the homeless, your productive, tax paying constituents will lose property value and hurt businesses. It would be good if our leadership was educated enough to tackle the hard problem of why homelessness is more of a problem than it used to be, rather than enabling the problem at the expense of your constituents. This approach has been attempted my times in many places. Have you even researched how this has worked out for others. I highly doubt that an objective study would support this as an affective solution. Please stop destroying our communities
Harley Westfall 7/6/24 5:02 PM Having read through the proposed Ordinance 0224-538 I feel that this is a No-Go. This is not a solution to the “emergency.” This reads more like an urgent need to spend “limited available funding” (section 6, page 5). Council members please vote “No.”
Shannon Faulkner 7/6/24 6:24 PM To whom it may concern, The issue of homelessness is much deeper than can be solved by allowing drug-addicted individuals to set up encampments in our neighborhoods. The issue plaguing most of these individuals is their drug addiction. Pandering to their base needs does nothing to help this but tick off the very people (tax-payers) who are paying the bill. Find another solution. This one is not going to work. You can see the evidence of these redundant solutions is what used to be Seattle. Do NOT hurt our community any more than you have already done with your grand decision to remove our access to police. Now you want us to be without police protection, with drug-addicts living in our front yard. Please be reasonable and find another solution.
David Haglund 7/6/24 10:45 PM In the immortal words of John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!” It would be one thing if this had not been tried (for years) in other places. But it has been tried in many formerly handsome, bustling and thriving urban and suburban communities such as Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, etc. These downtowns where I used to enjoy walking and shopping are now no-go zones, even in daylight. Copying failed programs is beyond idiotic, and it is a sad commentary on the Pierce County Council that this proposal got this far in the procedural process. It will be a long-lasting stain on the credibility and integrity of the Council if this goes any further than a resounding veto. NO!
Ryan Holland 7/6/24 11:28 PM As a stakeholder and a taxpayer in Pierce County, I'm in recognition that this is not a solution that works. I would be interested to know what discussion and with whom gave inspiration on the timing of the proposal of this ordinance. This simply seems to be another action item to put the electorate on the mantle for constituents to support. The logic of this proposal does not create a solution but an idea to try to see if it works, and this has failed in other cities like Seattle and Portland. I'm in opposition to this legislation and ask the council for a NO vote. Thank you.
Basma ONeill 7/7/24 5:36 AM I do not support emergency shelter. I support enforcing drug laws and putting these people in rehab facilities, or getting them in mental health facilities to treat mental illness.
Jennifer Walz 7/7/24 7:13 AM I do not want tax dollars going to this.
Martha Derr 7/7/24 11:37 AM Please do not endanger families and desecrate properties with homeless encampments. We all have the right to live in safe communities. Purposefully "dumping" the homeless into communities is not helping the homeless. They need help to become drug-free and mentally healthy. Put the money towards those necessities!
Sharon Michael 7/7/24 12:41 PM I have been a tax paying resident of Pierce County for 44 years and I strongly oppose this so-called emergency ordinance. This is misguided and helps no one. Most homeless people are either mentally ill or drug addicts and they need treatment and not tents. Please do not vote for this ordinance.
Thomas Gray 7/7/24 2:54 PM I oppose emergency ordinance 02024-538. It is not appropriate to use an emergency ordinance to solve a problem that has existed for a long time just to meet a Federal funding deadline. The ordinance and proposed regulatory changes should go through the normal review process with ample time for public comment and review. Failure of County Leadership to act on this issue earlier should not create an " emergency."
Peter Kelly 7/7/24 3:13 PM I oppose this “emergency” ordinance. Listen to your constituents and vote no. Thank you.
Tammy 7/7/24 3:30 PM Prevent a large portion of homelessness by: 1. Providing more access to mental health in particular psychiatrists and psychologists. As a health care worker I have seen first hand the shortage of providers and repercussions of long wait times. 2. Prosecute drug dealers with harsher consequences . 3. Public access to Drug rehab centers. 4. Building public housing in agreed upon locations with requirements of employment and drug tests. 5. Join resources with local churches/organizations to offer employment/ food sources/ mental health support/ family support.
Marc Nance 7/7/24 4:27 PM Hello I live in Pierce County and am involved with several homeless initiatives t. However I believe this emergency tent city proposal is bad for the county and urge you to vote NO. My rationale is: - These tent cities make things worse, not better - Why an emergency ordinance now in the summer and fall when our existing shelters are not at capacity? - We should not shortcut proper analysis of our land, use codes, the negative impacts of such a site on the surrounding community Please vote NO on Ordinance O2024-538 Respectfully Marc Nance Gig Harbor
Patrick Langsjoen 7/7/24 5:04 PM Strongly opposed. Do not disincentivize work. Instead, provide upward mobility through vocational arts and technical training for job placement. Encourage shared housing arrangements rather than condone breakdown of public safety and quality of life by enabling continued negative behaviors and homeless encampments.
John Rust 7/7/24 6:13 PM Tent cities have failed in every community in which it has been allowed. This is not a solution. Tent cities attract indigent people, drug users, and criminals. We do not want this in our county. When we lived in Kirkland, WA, a church behind our condo complex allowed homeless people to set up tents in their parking lot and use their restroom facilities inside the building. It was only a matter of weeks before we and our neighbors were experiencing extreme thievery around our area and local stores which we had not previously experienced. Let’s take a look at Multnomah County, Oregon. Tent cities and open drug use have virtually destroyed parts of Portland, a once great community. We do. It want this in our county. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN
John Rust 7/7/24 6:19 PM CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS COMMENT WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN OUR COUNTY.
John B Lucero 7/7/24 6:50 PM I do not support the proposed tent city and strongly advise that council members vote this proposal down.
Ruth A Lucero 7/7/24 6:56 PM This should not be implemented. I strongly advise the council to vote this proposal down and consider this or any such proposal using our tax dollars
Elizabeth A Smatlak 7/7/24 7:19 PM I strongly oppose Ordinance No. 02024-538 This does not solve the problem and will create more crime, litter and drug use. Get people into treatment
Lisa Delaney 7/7/24 8:36 PM I strongly oppose the creation of more tent cities in Pierce county.
Maria Ceschim 7/7/24 9:44 PM I’ll be watching very closely this proposal. I don’t want this at all. My vote next election will be with who vote against it.
Mary Haugen 7/7/24 9:54 PM I strongly oppose ordinance 02024-538. It will not solve the problem, but bring more crime, drug use, and destroy the beautiful cities we live in. Help these people with treatment, not an area to continue their self destruction.
Cameron Severns 7/7/24 9:57 PM As a local small business owner and a real estate investor I support this proposal. This is a technical change that is necessary ad has nothing to do with politics. I urge a yes vote on this. Thank you.
Dan Hudson 7/7/24 10:27 PM I cannot support the proposal as written. It obliterates a lot of existing guidelines that were put in place by smart, well meaning people. I see no reason to relax the location constraints. In particular, all of the stricken requirements of the existing Temporary Housing Community shall be restored with the exception of increasing the head count to 100. Keep the minimum required distances. Keep the 1/4 mile distance from public transportation. What method can citizens protest and actually block the creation of a temp housing community? A posted hearing is not enough. 300 feet and 2 parcels is not enough. It will impact a wider area. What are the remedies? A temporary tent city according to the ordinace can exist for 180 days and possibly be extended 180 days more. Then what happens? Are you going to remove it or look the other way. Who gets to spend the 2.5 million? What happens when it's exhausted? Lots of Tacoma homeless are gone. Did Tacoma flush people out of the city's tent cities and into the county just shifting the problem? If so, they have to be part of the solution.
Lori Freeman 7/7/24 11:09 PM Homlesss encampments are just a quick fix. We need better solutions.
Daniel Still 7/8/24 1:24 AM Please vote NO.  A proposed low-barrier stability site would mean drug users would be allowed to continue using their illegal drugs while in the shelter.  Will there be mandatory drug counseling for addicts and counseling for those with mental illness so as to get these individuals on the path to healing?  Or are you just rushing to meet the December 1, 2024 deadline to spend the $2,500,000 federal funds, earmarked for a low barrier shelter to house addicts and the mentally ill?  Many of these individuals do not have steady income from a job.  In order for them to get money for their illegal drugs, they will prey (commit crimes), on the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods that you have chosen to site the facility.  If this proposal goes through, no doubt crimes, especially property crimes, will increase.  You for sure will be facing in the near future in a public meeting, upset neighbors living in the effected area answering why crimes have spiked in their neighborhood. Just because there is $2,500,000 ARPA funds available to spend on a low-barrier stability site, does not mean we must use it for an already failed experiment found in several other justifications.  I'm sure you agree that some legislation which comes out of our elected officials in Washington D.C., does not make sense, and is often out of touch with reality.  Some rather throw money at a problem hoping it will go away.    If this proposal goes through, and I again request you vote no, will the site shut down when the ARPA funds, our tax dollars, run out.  Or will you be coming to the public to request county funds, again our tax dollars, to keep the site open?
Lori Kuzminsky 7/8/24 7:47 AM I strongly request you listen to your constituents and vote NO on this emergency ordinance 02024-538 regarding homeless housing. This is misguided and will not solve a problem. Tent cities or encampments in Pierce County should not be allowed and is not solving the root cause of homelessness. The evidence of its failure is clear in Tacoma and Seattle. We do NOT WANT THIS IN PUYALLUP! It is using our tax dollars inappropriately and Mr. Mello and Hitchen cannot slide this emergency ordinance in like they are trying to do this week. This must be squashed and the council must listen to the people who live here.
Keith Weigel 7/8/24 8:54 AM Opposed. If enacted, this proposal will augment not lessen the problems.
Carolyn Robertson Harding 7/8/24 9:52 AM This proposal is a continuation of more of the same which clearly is not working. By your own data we have more homeless people in Pierce County than ever before. Why? Because our electeds are enabling their behavior and imposing the consequences of those behaviors on our communities and families. Our Council is not listening to the parents and families of people with mental health and addiction issues. Intervention early is needed. Encouraging people to live in tents and camps in squalor and unsafe conditions is a direct reflection of the lack of concern for the people of Pierce County. What you should be doing is holding people accountable for their choices. Using drugs is illegal, arrest them and get them in the jail. Evaluate them and provide opportunities to make better decisions-jail or treatment. Council has all the policies it needs to do that. Those funds should be spent on how to truly give people the opportunity to change their behavior or live somewhere else. Turning a blind eye to the actual problem is how families like ours lose their loved ones. How many are going to die or become mentally ill from fentanyl before its enough.
Jessica 7/8/24 10:49 AM I oppose this proposal because it has not been effective in other parts of Pierce County. This will only expand the problem.
Susan Barr 7/8/24 11:02 AM My vote is NO! There is absolutely no reason for this emergency ordinance. This kind of ordinance does nothing but encourage camping instead of encouraging lasting solutions that help the homeless without destroying neighborhoods.
nancy Harvey 7/8/24 11:15 AM Please say NO to this ordinance. We keep hearing that giving more money to this is the answer, How is that helping? We see humans strung out on drugs not being able to function so putting up a tent city is going to help them? How? is it giving them the chance to get clean and drug free? is it giving them a place to use more drugs and not be held accountable for any of their choices, Yes! thats what it does. ask anybody that works in the tent citys in Tacoma what they see, what is there thoughts that could help. Ask recovered homeless people, key word RECOVERED, what helped them. there is not enough recovery options here. you wait for a date to get into recovery and then they say you are better in two weeks. that's not true. they go right back using. Heres a thought, You want to better yourself to become a productive person then we will house you but you HAVE to work the program of healing. Recovery is hard but possible, but what this ordince proposes is enabling people to continue in their current life style.
Beryl Emberson-Nash 7/8/24 11:18 AM Please listen to the voice of the people and vote NO
Jennifer Beaty 7/8/24 11:25 AM I very strongly oppose this legislation. Vote NO! I would like to remind each of you that you work for your constituents, not the other way around. This solution has not worked in the past and will not work this time. Again, vote NO!
Stephanie Kuemerle 7/8/24 11:31 AM I strongly OPPOSE this proposition. Tent cities, tiny home villages, etc. are a failure everywhere they exist and only attract more people who want to live at the expense of hard working tax payers. True compassion is requiring drug addicts to get rehabilitation and moving the mentally ill into mental health care facilities. This vagrant situation has exploded because it has been tolerated and allowed. We now have a huge "Homeless Industrial Complex"—government agencies and so-called non-profit organizations who are the only true benefactors from these misguided and idiotic programs. And the ongoing answer is always that we need to SPEND MORE MONEY, meaning that the government will take more of our money. Ask yourself this question—would you allow this behavior in your home by your child, friend or other family member? Why do we allow it in our communities—our common home?
David Kuemerle 7/8/24 11:52 AM This proposal is another attempt by the Council to address a drug and mental health problem by calling it homelessness and wasting yet again thousands of our tax dollars that actually could be used to address the problem, if only the Council would admit what the problem is. Allowing these camps only encourage additional vagrants to move in, rather than convert them to contributing members of society. It will not remove existing ILLEGAL camps. The camp proposed by this ordinance will not address nor fix the problem, just as it has failed everywhere else in the country where similar ordinances have passed. QUIT WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS. Who will be the first to volunteer to have this camp build in their neighborhood?
Stephanie Kuemerle 7/8/24 11:54 AM I strongly OPPOSE this proposition. Tent cities, tiny home villages, etc. are a failure everywhere they exist and only attract more people who want to live at the expense of hard working tax payers. True compassion is requiring drug addicts to get rehabilitation and moving the mentally ill into mental health care facilities. This vagrant situation has exploded because it has been tolerated and allowed. We now have a huge "Homeless Industrial Complex"—government agencies and so-called non-profit organizations who are the only true benefactors from these misguided and idiotic programs. And the ongoing answer is always that we need to SPEND MORE MONEY, meaning that the government will take more of our money. Ask yourself this question—would you allow this behavior in your home by your child, friend or other family member? Why do we allow it in our communities—our common home?
David B. Moylan 7/8/24 12:49 PM I strongly oppose Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-538. The substance of the proposed solution would NOT solve the underlying problem; it will not benefit our community; It does not instill either "a path forward" or personal accountability. It seems to be just another governmental "let's throw money at the problem" response. Albert Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".
Ben Ferguson 7/8/24 1:37 PM I strongly support Ordinance 2024-538 allowing THC's in unincorporated Pierce County. Tacoma already allows THC's and the County needs to also lead during this crisis. Our regional Housing Crisis was caused by a lack of governmental leadership to understand that we have not collectively built enough housing since the Great Recession. Now we have thousands of people who are unhoused and living without dignity. As society, the least we can do is provide temporary shelter while the larger policies have time to be implemented. If the county does not allow THC's those wihtout housing will still be living outside, they will just be doing it in locations that damage our community. Please allow organizations to help ease this burden. Provide a place where people can receive services (at a lower cost to society) while keeping people out of our right-of-ways and private property.
Alexander Scheel 7/8/24 1:55 PM Council, As a disabled combat veteran, I have experienced homelessness twice in the decade since leaving the Army. Housing prices and inflation have destroyed the opportunity to buy or rent a place to live for many Pierce county residents and we need to pass legislation to help those who have the least. I strongly support passing this proposal.
Whitney Stevens 7/8/24 2:45 PM Criminalizing homelessness does nothing to solve the problem and creates a larger burden on taxpayers than programs that support keeping people in their homes. Common sense regulations that provide guidelines and regulations for this much needed stopgap housing solution are critical.
Barbara Gilchrist 7/8/24 2:46 PM With the weather getting more extreme, getting our unhoused neighbors off the street and into better conditions is imperative. Every day our community members are dying because they don't have access to shelter, food, and water. No, the proposal does not solve everything, but we need to start somewhere if we're going to get started at all. This is an essential step in the right direction and should be followed by more action to serve our unhoused neighbors.
Marijka Fleming 7/8/24 2:56 PM This is outrageous and must be stopped. Are the representatives (such a loose term) that came up with this seeking to destroy all of Pierce County? its not bad enough what has been done to Tacoma and Seattle? Good grief, wake up and listen to your constituents.
B.D. Johnson 7/8/24 3:05 PM If not this emergency proposal, then where do you propose to send those who are currently homeless? I’ve worked with the homeless population for over the last six months and here are some stark realities I’ve faced while trying to help them find resources. The temporary shelters in Tacoma are understaffed and underfunded and are having a hard time keeping up with increased demand. This means more people on the streets and there are few resources to address many of their current needs. Severely limited resources mean they become a matter create serious problems for other public sectors, particularly law enforcement The more police that are involved enforcing sweeps the fewer police we have are available to deal with other public safety issues. For example, traffic accidents are one of the number one causes of fatalities in this country. Should we be pulling officers away from deterring such things? Public funds that are wasted on ineffective sweeps can be put to better uses that have some chance of improving the situation. After a sweep, people often move just a block or two away from where they previously were. The Homeless do not just vanish from existence simply because you tell them to go away. Right now its getting hot, which means things are only going to get worse. Without shelter or access to a convenient water source we are going to see a lot more people collapsing from heat stroke and exhaustion, putting even further strain on our first responders. The way I see it we have a choice moving forward, 1. move to pass the ordinance and have support the rapid creation of managed emergency shelters. A vote for good stewardship of limited public funds will also reduce public safety calls. 2. continue to use expensive, ineffective tactics to deal with the issue and hope for a different outcome. Meanwhile the whole community will continue to suffer the consequences of these failed approaches. I ask the council to vote yes for the ordinance.
Luca Camarata 7/8/24 3:24 PM As a resident of District 5 and South Tacoma, I fully support this proposal as it serves as a temporary emergency solution to the heatwave impacting all of Tacomans, especially our unhoused neighbors. I live in a house with partial air conditioning and still suffer from heat related illnesses. The situation for my unhoused neighbors is far more dire. We must protect those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and other issues facing our community. Please accept this proposal.
SARA IRISH 7/8/24 3:28 PM I support
Curtis Fries 7/8/24 3:42 PM I oppose emergency ordinance 02024-53B. I believe adding more tent cities will cause more problems down the road. Vote NO!
Lauren Angelo 7/8/24 3:44 PM I support this ordinance. It reduces barriers to creating emergency shelter, and allows human services agencies to better do their job. The heat advisory taking place during this vote should be a prime example as to why additional healthy shelter spaces are necessary.
Richard and Kathleen Mercier 7/8/24 3:46 PM This proposed ordinance # 02024-538 to provide immediate emergency shelter for the unsheltered is another money grab. Building tent cities will not nor does it solve the homeless problem. All this does is encourage more homelessness in the county. Spending our tax dollars this way makes absolutely zero sense. This wasteful spending and unaccounted-for taxpayers' dollars must be stopped. The state and cities have spent millions on this issue and have accomplished nothing. Use our taxes to clean up all the homeless camps and discourage this type of living. You know as well as most – if people wanted the help to get off the streets there are plenty of places, they can go to receive assistance! Stop all these “feel good” wasteful spending programs.
Bronwyn Clarke 7/8/24 4:16 PM We need more UNCONDITIONAL shelter and housing options for our houseless neighbors! The principle of taking care of 'housing first', then providing additional wraparound services afterwards is by far the most evidence-based policy response to homelessness. I support anything along these lines.
Jarel Sanders 7/8/24 4:23 PM After seeing the supreme courts decision, I am proud to live in a county that is working towards not making it illegal to be homeless when you have no home to go to. Especially when there are not enough resources for all the homeless community in our county.
Brenda Smith 7/8/24 4:35 PM We have been living with this for years, You have done nothing for us, it all about the homeless and the druggies, Its time for enforcements and stop this. they are already in encampments. how will this help, its the same stuff,
Robert Rodriguez 7/8/24 4:37 PM This is another absurd idea. We need independence of these nonsensical ideologies. We do not pay taxes to support drug abuse, crime, and lawlessness. Tent cities bring nothing more than destruction to our communities, businesses, and way of life. It is time to clean up the streets, arrest offenders, and once again make vagrancy a crime. These ridiculous proposals do not serve to resolve homelessness,to the contrary, this proposal would serve to empower more crime, drug abuse, and continuation of homelessness. Protect the tax payers that pay your salaries. We cut law enforcement and we continue to tie the laws hands by promoting these useless proposals that solve nothing. It is high time we deal with the reality of bad governance. Do allow bad decisions to result in more victimization. Stop this ridiculousness at once!
Suzanne Canton 7/8/24 4:37 PM I oppose this ordinance, as it is not an Emergency and will not solve the problem. Please vote NO.
Mary Frances O’Connell 7/8/24 4:38 PM Let’s learn from our mistakes and not continue to make the same wrong decisions that Tacoma and Seattle have made in the past.
Collin Thrower 7/8/24 4:43 PM I strongly support Ordinance 2024-538. Allow me a moment to share a story of two men I met in April. In walking downtown, I met a fellow, Steve, who was lost. He had a broken rib and suffered from chronic pain, and he was looking for the Nativity House on Yakima. I walked him up the hill and made sure he was able to get where he needed to go. There, I met another man, Aaron, who I saw later that same night outside the County Building. Talking with him, I come to learn he volunteers with another shelter and lived in his car which was no longer working. The Nativity House did not have a bed available for him. Aaron expressed that he felt the City, the County, the State all saw people like him as a lost cause, that homelessness was a lost cause. Steve had shelter to go to that evening, Aaron did not. There is a dire need for shelter in Tacoma and Pierce County. Existing temporary shelters in Tacoma are understaffed, underfunded, and struggle to keep up with demand. This causes people be on the street due to limited bedspaces and the rules of shelters are restrictive for individuals suffering from drug and mental health issues, or have pets, or are not allowed to bring possessions in with them which force them onto the streets. The same way we see insufficient resources to address homelessness in the country, let alone the County, we see people struggle to gain access to substance use services and mental health services. But it directing that treatment, it starts with shelter and moving into permanent housing. The proposed ordinance offers a technical fix and expansion to already existing laws to ensure that there is a more adequate response to the homelessness crisis. Without shelter, where do we expect Pierce's unhoused population to go? Everyone needs a safe place to sleep, and Pierce County currently has many more folks who are homeless than beds. We know housing is the solution to homelessness, but as a temporary measure goes we hopefully see continued investment in the construction of additional shelters and therefore beds, this ordinance provides a temporary solution that will assist in the meantime. From a practical matter of addressing homelessness and from a humane perspective, this is a start. I urge the Council to VOTE YES on this proposal.
k Norbe 7/8/24 4:46 PM This seems to not address water sheds. Also, it does not address the root cause of the problem. why not establish a citizens commission comprised of stake holders to address this national problem rather than a bandaid approach such as this. I believe it attempts to solve a problem by creation a variety of other problems. I don't see how it has been justified as a solution.
Sarah Cline 7/8/24 5:38 PM Strongly oppose
Patricia Blau 7/8/24 5:47 PM Let's get people off the streets and into housing.
Sara Schroeter 7/8/24 7:54 PM Vote No, Robyn! Tents are not how we solve this crisis. Drug and psychological treatment are where the resources need to go. Find programs around the country that have actually worked instead of simply creating more and more tent cities and encampments.
Tim Washington 7/8/24 8:32 PM Vote NO! Ensure every council member voting Yes is ousted. Let's make Jani Hitchen, Robyn Denson, and Ryan Mello one-term council members. Kelly Chambers for county executive! Ryan Mello wants to turn Pierce County into Gotham City!
Jimmie Farmer 7/8/24 8:45 PM I strongly support this proposal. Getting the unhoused out of pure survival mode and giving them a safe place to stay will greatly help them to start on the path to get whatever help they may need is the right and moral thing to do. It seems to me that society today has forgotten about the common good; this ordinance is a small step back towards that ideal.
Frances Blair 7/8/24 9:36 PM Iam not happy about placing the tiny home village in a wetland, far from services and transportation; HOWEVER, that is preferable to filling in the wetland and to having people homeless. So I support this proposal.
Krissy Kim 7/8/24 10:31 PM The number of unsheltered residents continues to increase. People are dying on our streets or suffering trauma and great harm. People cannot make decisions beyond survival like working on substance use disorder, or on physical and mental health. They are looking for safety, some place to rest, food and basic hygiene services. This will allow willing partners like non-profits, churches and some other types of organizations that have land that CAN be used for this. It will go through an application process and will require noticing, at least one public meeting and all residents are screened. They will be provided with services on-site, hygiene and basic resources. This gets them out of survival mode and they can start to work on other challenges. This is not permanent housing for those living rough, but a transition place, for a person to get well enough, to gather necessary paperwork, identification, resources and be well enough to make decisions.
Sandra R Johanson 7/8/24 10:39 PM The homeless,communities need help!
Jake Nau 7/8/24 10:41 PM Strongly support this proposal because i believe in housing for all. Humans deserve housing. There are successful examples of tiny home villages, sanctioned tent sites and even successful unsanctioned encampments all over the county. Don’t let the knee-jerk NIMBY chorus of uninformed fear overwhelm your common sense or your conscience. Sweeping, criminalizing, chasing unhoused humans in circles around the county ain’t working. Homeless people need a place to be safe and THCs are a good start. Please vote yes.
Ashley Fedan 7/9/24 6:09 AM I fully support this proposal- and ask that the council members look beyond politics, divisiveness and ego. Pleas vote YES! The members of our community who need these temporary shelters have depth beyond substance use disorder, mental health concerns or financial struggles. They are children of God. Far less fortunate than those who placate their political leanings in homes with roofs, food to eat, a comfortable bed, and internet connection, we should reflect on how WE would want to be treated. No one chooses to be homeless; chooses to be poor; chooses to use makeshift camps without running water or food; chooses to have chemical imbalances in their brain. We can do better as a community- we HAVE to demonstrate what kindness and empathy means to those who live with the daily struggle to survive. One has to kneel before they can crawl or walk. Recognize that as a basic recognition of a higher entity to be capable of our daily lives. The THCs are the manifestation of through the lens of housing and vital assistance. I strongly support this ordinance. Give those who struggle a chance to kneel. A chance to survive.
Lezley McDouall 7/9/24 6:46 AM We need more housing. YESTERDAY! Please approve this enabling legislation
Eva Robinett 7/9/24 6:54 AM I do not support this proposal. Tent cities are a short fix. We need to look at long term solutions and help our citizens with their mental health and possible addiction issues. They need to have housing that can last a lifetime. Continuing to band aid the problem will not help
Danielle 7/9/24 7:29 AM I oppose this. This is putting kerosine on fire. This is not a solution, but instead creating more of a problem for our community
Doug Stearns 7/9/24 8:04 AM I oppose this ordinance, life is about making choices, i oppose stealing from honest hard working taxpayers and giving to people so they can continue to make bad choices, force the homeless to modify/change their behavior and make better choices or be prosecuted and punished for the crimes, continuing to enable people who don't care about themselves and the communities they are destroying is not the answer.
Judi Moody 7/9/24 8:23 AM You created the problem, and now you are going to swoop in and "fix it"? When have government "solutions" ever worked? Look no further than Cabrini Green in Chicago and other slums around the nation. I am in total opposition to turning Pierce County into one giant slum. Stop the invasion of our country by illegal aliens and "refugees" from the Middle East who would do us harm and you'll solve part of the problem...Bring back mental institutions to house the mentally ill and you'll solve another cause of the problem....
David Salo 7/9/24 9:46 AM I support this Proposal At the expense of ONLY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SUPPORT IT. let them throw THEIR MONEY AWAY
Jennifer Estroff 7/9/24 10:35 AM I STRONGLY support the proposal to authorize THCs in unincorporated Pierce County. Councilmember Hererra attended a meeting at a church on my street that brought our community together to find solutions to unhoused people camping in a lot across the street, and heard directly from my neighbors and me about how ALL options to help unhoused people have a safe place to sleep and get resources is crucial to the health of our community. THCs will allow willing partners like non-profits, churches and some other types of organizations that have land that CAN be used for this to create safe spaces. It will go through an application process and will require noticing, at least one public meeting and all residents are screened. Unhoused neighbors will be provided with services on-site, hygiene and basic resources. This gets them out of survival mode and they can start to work on other challenges. I urge my Councilmember, and ALL councilmembers to support this proposal.
Amanda DeShazo 7/9/24 10:50 AM Dear Executive Dammeier and County Councilmembers, I am writing to express the Tacoma-Pierce County Affordable Housing Consortium's strong support for Ordinance 2024-538. With Pierce County experiencing a current housing crisis, we have seen an unprecedented number of individuals without shelter who are at a higher risk of perishing on the streets due to extreme temperatures. Last year alone, over 230 unhoused individuals died on the streets in Pierce County. Many of these deaths could have been prevented with access to shelter and services. At a time when Pierce County is striving to implement a comprehensive approach to address homelessness, it is disheartening to see disagreement within our Council regarding the siting of temporary housing that would provide safe spaces for people to sleep and get support in their transition into permanent housing. We urge Councilmembers to uphold their commitment to ending homelessness by voting in support of Ordinance 2024-538. Voting against this measure directly contradicts the Comprehensive Plan to End Homelessness adopted two years ago by the Council. Our community is seeking solutions. We have the opportunity to make housing a reality. Let's work together to ensure access to safe, secure housing and help our community members transition off the streets. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.
Robert Cox 7/9/24 10:55 AM Please vote NO on Ordinance No. O2024-538. History tells us that what we encourage/ subsidize we get more of. Our community is already heavily impacted by homeless encampments and the trash they accumulate. Stop encouraging this behavior.
James Baglio 7/9/24 11:20 AM Please support iniitiative. It's a matter of life and death. Please save lives.
Julie Tappero 7/9/24 11:54 AM I oppose this ordinance. I chose to live in a rural area because of the peace, beauty, remoteness and quality of life. Having a tent community of homeless will destroy that, and definitely compromise the value of my home. My volunteer work has made me very familiar with the underlying issues that cause homelessness. Not always, but many times it is untreated mental health concerns and drug addiction. In the unincorporated areas, we do not offer the many services needed for homeless people to assist them. The urban areas should be the sites of shelters. If cities don't create shelters (for obvious reasons), then it is ridiculous for the County to force homeless into the rural areas. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Grants Pass case has provided direction to the County on how to proceed. I urge my elected official, and the others, to oppose this ordinance and support the needs and desires of my community.
Christine Lindquist 7/9/24 12:37 PM I support this proposal. Unsheltered Pierce County residents are dying on the street as the number grows year over year. We don't even have enough safe parking spaces for all of the homeless folks living in their cars, much less shelter beds or accessible housing. Many of these people are families with young children, disabled people, and seniors. We are way beyond a state of emergency. All options are needed.
Joseph McCarthy 7/9/24 12:38 PM I oppose this measure as written. We need a more complete solution. We don't need housing bandaids.
Matt Rusnak 7/9/24 12:51 PM Dear Councilmembers, Please vote NO on this proposed ordinance. For those councilmembers who vote to approve this ordinance, please disclose the physical address of your primary residence so that the folks who it's intended to help will know where to go to receive a warm welcome.
Devin Rydel Kelly 7/9/24 1:01 PM I am in complete and total support of this ordinance and applaud the County Council for proposing it. The homelessness crisis and the underlying housing market crisis are by far some of the most pressing issues for our community, and we must do everything to keep working people housed and re-house those who have lost their homes. That said, the County should also be doing more to support prevention, including looking into rent stabilization, eviction moratoriums (similar to Tacoma's new system), adjusting what qualifies as "low income," and massively expanding the housing stock. This is an important stop-gap though, and has my support.
Marci Nelson 7/9/24 1:14 PM I adamantly oppose this proposal. This is not the answer to the homeless problem. This will create unsafe conditions for the homeless and for concerned citizens. Why not find ways to lower the cost of living? Cost of gas and food? These are the real issues. This will only cause law abiding citizens to exit the area.
Karen Kloss 7/9/24 1:30 PM I do not support Ordinance 02024-538. This will not solve the problem it only enables the homeless situations. If we continue to make it easy there will not be change.
Kristin Marie Lillegard 7/9/24 1:33 PM We have to do something, and this is a tiny start. Housing first is the only humane option, but giving the unhoused somewhere to be where they aren't chased away by the cops every two days provides a tiny bit of relief. How can anyone get help when all their energy is being used looking for a spot to sleep.
Brian Bourdeau 7/9/24 1:38 PM As a tax paying resident of Pierce County and the State of Washington, I strongly oppose this measure and change. This is yet another government overreach and waste of taxpayer funds. You are setting a negative precedent. I have sympathy for those in crisis. What I don't have is patience in the way our government representatives think waiving the rules that rest of us are bound by, There is far too much coddling for special interests and the lack of personal social responsibility. The code of conduct section only speaks to violent criminals and sexual assaults. Why aren't drug use, theft, prostitution, and many other criminal activities listed. Most of our homeless open air illegal encampments are just open air drug use facilities. I have witnessed this first hand from Seattle, to Olympia and beyond. The policies you institute do not work. Do better.
Joshua Hosford 7/9/24 1:41 PM With the recent federal supreme court decision the county should be taking a much more proactive approach to cleaning up our county and only allowing housing when treatment, counseling or mental health resources are required. As an expert in addiction with my own personal story allowing low barrier housing will only enable people to continue to make poor choices and not put them on a path to recovery. These camps will foster more drug use, mental health crisis' and create unsafe environments for people. A vote for allowing these camps is a vote to enable more people to live this way without forcing positive steps forward to potentially save lives. Vote No
Linda Siegel 7/9/24 2:00 PM As a career ICU RN, I tell you this proposed Ordinance will NOT help manage our endemic homeless problem which you have failed to appropriately manage. Tents and encampments are a serious Public Health hazard, not to mention extremely harmful to those who are occupying them. We cannot know what is happening in those tents. Please start thinking outside the box to begin to manage this problem.
Jennie Young 7/9/24 2:17 PM This proposed ordinance is not a compassionate or viable response. Please vote no. People deserve thoughtful solutions.
Corbin Walters 7/9/24 2:36 PM 1). There is no emergency that warrants “Emergency Action”. There is nothing new here, no sudden impending influx of persons from a recent or impending catastrophe that is anticipated. 2). There is no evidence to show that tent cities provide either a short term or long term solution to the problem described. 3). No long term objective or resolution has been identified. The above three bullets are the minimum elements necessary to define before public monies are spent and new or changed public policies established. One only has to look to similar failed efforts and policies enacted in King County, Seattle and Portland to see the destructive effects that these types of efforts and policies have had on the communities where they have been enacted.
Patricia 7/9/24 2:37 PM Learn from the bad experience of other cities - Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, San Francisco. Cities that make homelessness easy with free housing, free food, free meds, drug use legalized - removing the imperative to provide for oneself - are putting out the welcome mat for people from all over to move to here and squat on our streets....and devalue themselves and their individual potential at a wonderful life. Sure, not everyone who is homeless is lazy or a drug addict or has mental illness and in this economy after the long, long lockdowns & resulting shutdowns of small businesses, jobs disappeared. People should be helped, through charity, and common sense - not more government handouts with no useful requirements that help facilitate self-sufficiency again. And helping them should not blight and endanger and cause anxiety in neighborhoods across Pierce County. You, as purported representatives of Pierce County, must not play favorites and prioritize the seeming interests of the few over the interests of hundreds of thousands of constitutents. Let the federal grant $ go - this proposal will end up causing Pierce County far more in the long run if adopted. OPPOSE this proposed ordnance.
Laura Crews 7/9/24 2:57 PM I support Ordinance No. 02024-538. In my opinion, emergency shelters can provide needed services in a controlled environment. A community has an obligation to help provide a bare minimum for all citizens, no matter what circumstances have led to their homelessness.
Dylan McTighe 7/9/24 3:31 PM I am opposed to this idea, we do not have the resources for the shelter and we already pay way too much in taxes. If my representative supports this proposal I will vote them out of office.
Lauri Lindquist 7/9/24 3:46 PM Please vote yes. It's the only humane option. Our unhoused neighbors need a place to stay.
Aaron 7/9/24 4:19 PM I and a majority of the public DO NOT support this Ordinance. Vote No! We don't need another failed tax and spend ordinance put onto the taxpayers. County government rarely gets it right and this will be another failure at taxpayers expense.
Jennifer Carlisle 7/9/24 5:23 PM As someone who has worked in the mental health field and with the homeless population for several years, I am baffled by the callousness and empathy-deficiency of many comments here. Between the current state of the housing and rental markets, the insufficiency of the rental market and lack of affordability, the overburdened medical system, and the burnout of almost all of the systems in place, not to mention the lackluster and misguided approaches many individuals working within the systems practice, it's not a surprise to see an increasing number of our fellow humans and community members falling into a cycle of poverty and homelessness. This cycle is exasperated, fueled, and perpetuated by assumptions made on the part of terrified housed individuals about those experiencing homelessness that allow and justify the dehumanization of vulnerable and suffering human beings who are more in need of support and connection than any others, yet here we see all of the pitchfork wielding townfolk ready to bludgeon and massacre those in need because of ignorant hatred borne out of unfounded fear. The best wolves wear sheep's clothing like they never didn't is one thing I learned from working in mental health and human services. Another lesson was that the workers who actually help those in need have to do so covertly. Despite trauma informed care and recovery oriented language being part of annual training and people talking the talk of integrity and respect, the reality about the dark underbelly of this society is that we live in Opposite World. The reality of being homeless is also much different than most people think. It's extremely expensive to eat when you can't cook. It's extremely difficult to maintain hope and motivation when you have to move your entire existence every morning. It's extremely difficult to work or maintain a job when you know that leaving your belongings behind could mean coming home to nothing because it's all been stolen, set on fire, or bulldozed. It's extremely difficult to trust anyone when you're being bullied, condescended to, and belittled by all who cross your path. It's difficult to remember your own humanity or that kindness is ever genuine when all of those who assume they are superior to you are unkind and even downright cruel because they have denied that humanity all together. Build "rat park" and watch everything change. Research shows that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety; it is connection and higher quality of life. When those living in fear and yelling, "mine, mine, mine" stop feeding their own need for control, the egocentric fears will melt away and compassion and kindness will offer healing. When a chain is damaged or broken, you don't send for maintenance and repair for the sections that are intact; you fix the parts that were overburdened and broken. When you're trying to save someone who is drowning, you don't throw a fire extinguisher at them and hope it floats. When you're trying to put someone out when they're on fire, a floatation device is not the appropriate tool. Giving the homeless population safe places to go is one step closer to solving the issues at the root, and research shows that only a small portion of the homeless population is actually on drugs. There are many more causes of homelessness than just drugs, but assuming addiction makes dehumanization easier. If folks have a safe place to go and a space to call their own, even temporarily, that they can come back to each day without concerns about destruction or disappearance, they can regain some footing and get back on their feet, but it takes time to recover from the PTSD of just being in that situation, and as of my last research into seeing any kind of doctor or therapist, it takes weeks or months to even get in the door, much less make progress. Drugs are the least of our problems in my opinion. What's the baby boom generation going to do when the wait time for their doctor or any doctor grows to years instead of months??? The faulty systems should be a focus, not a few individuals who are still members of the community who are struggling to survive being a so-called "eye sore" in someone's neighborhood. Unless we all missed the memo that losing housing equals excommunication from the community, but the way folks are behaving, it seems we may have. I certainly hope no one with a superiority complex here has to experience the emotional pain and suffering of not only losing everything, but of being shunned by society simply because life threw too many curve balls for their resources to cover and things went sideways. I encourage everyone to remember and honor the humanity of those in wealth as well as those in struggle, even if one doesn't understand the other.
Rev King Schoenfeld 7/9/24 5:30 PM My wife and I and our church members have first hand experience with the FOB tent city. These Tacomans are veterans in transition to permanent housing. This temporary placement is essential. It’s wrong to say that there’s no emergency for them. We found them good, motivated people, most of whom work. However, a current gap in funding has removed this safety net for our vets. Please support this legislation!
Ernest Oliver 7/9/24 6:31 PM The number of unsheltered residents continues to increase. People are dying on our streets or suffering trauma and great harm. People cannot make decisions beyond survival like working on substance use disorder, or on physical and mental health. They are looking for safety, some place to rest, food and basic hygiene services. This will allow willing partners like non-profits, churches and some other types of organizations that have land that CAN be used for this. It will go through an application process and will require noticing, at least one public meeting and all residents are screened. They will be provided with services on-site, hygiene and basic resources. This gets them out of survival mode and they can start to work on other challenges. This is not permanent housing for those living rough, but a transition place, for a person to get well enough, to gather necessary paperwork, identification, resources and be well enough to make decisions.
Nathan Blackmer 7/10/24 9:12 AM As a former homeless outreach worker, we have to do this. As a mental health professional - you cannot effectively work on mental health issues while someone is homeless. The weather is getting more intense, and if survival needs are unmet, how are we supposed to work on anything that isn't a survival need? It is cowardice to abandon those in need. It is fear that drives hatred of the poor. It is weakness to avoid responsibility. You are not those things, and you wield power - use it to help those in need.
BarbaraWilliams 7/10/24 9:31 AM I support this proposal. The “ homeless” are not a mass to be dismissed. They are individuals who need a place to be safe.