Tent City 4 - Controversy Over Tent City 4

Controversy Over Tent City 4

While some religious and spiritual communities, organizations, and community members have welcomed and supported the presence of Tent City 4 in east King County, Tent City 4 has encountered vocal and active opposition from other residents of the communities it moves to. Part of this opposition is because Tent City 4 has located itself on properties without permits many of the cities it moves to. Despite assurances and reports by King County Sheriff's Office and other local police departments that there have been no increases in crime rates in areas TC4 moves to, this opposition has also been fueled by a concern about the impact TC4 has on crime rates in the area of TC4. Many suburban cities have created code amendments for permitting that attempt to balance the desires of churches to host the encampments with community desires for rules that address their public safety and welfare concerns.

After Tent City 4 found its first home in Bothell, the City of Bothell filed suit to evict the camp. Central to the lawsuit was the claim that due to TC4's proximity to four schools and the potential financial damage that might be incurred, the encampment was an undue burden to the city. Bothell attempted to require the encampment's residents to provide identification for warrant checks, require the church to either hire private security or pay overtime to the Bothell Police, and to provide liability insurance of at least $1 million. A judge hearing the issue refused to order these conditions but did order SHARE/WHEEL to obtain permits for this, and future encampments. Woodinville has also submitted the costs of private security patrols and liability insurance to NUCC and SHARE, but TC4 contends the security charges are unwarranted due to SHARE's existing security detail. The city contends that SHARE's security only covers the encampment and not the surrounding area so the patrols are needed. The issue remains as a point of contention.

King County Council member Carolyn Edmonds proposed a citizens' commission be formed to study the siting issues. On June 1, 2004, the council voted to create the King County Citizens' Advisory Commission on Homelessness and Encampments (CACHE) to recommend policies and guidelines for dealing with homelessness.

On August 13, 2004, CACHE submitted its final report citing a need for homeless encampments "because current regional efforts are inadequate to meet the needs of homeless men, women and families" and approving of the use of both public and private land to house the homeless encampments as a short-term solution. On the same day the dissenting members of the commission submitted their report to the council, finding fault with how the members of CACHE were selected, how the data was collected and used, and a general feeling that the report was affected more by inputs from special interest groups and county staff than the citizens it was formed to represent. The report also included recommendations for the handling of homeless encampments and alternatives to them. The council included the report in the record and voted to direct the executive to consider its findings when drafting proposed legislation.

An article in The Woodinville Weekly quotes several Tent City 4 residents who criticized SHARE/WHEEL's operation of the encampments and alleged that some expensive, high technology donations were sold at auction to raise funds.

The King County Council heard public testimony on February 7, 2005 on two pieces of amended legislation addressing the issue of homeless encampments in King County. This bi-partisan legislation, a result of months of compromise in an attempt to find a middle ground for all parties, was scrapped and a new one was drafted behind closed doors in exclusive negotiations between Councilmember Edmonds and the Church Council of Greater Seattle led by Rev. Sanford Brown. In May 2005 this new legislation was moved before, and passed by, the council after a full public hearing in a bipartisan vote.

The discord between faith-based organizations and cities over tent cities prompted members of the Democratic-controlled State legislature to introduce H.B. 2244 that would prohibit cities from preventing churches from housing tent cities and from limiting their stay to less than 90 days. The bill failed to make it to the floor for a vote.