After two years squatting on city land, the issue of Nickelsville has come home to roost.
The city’s Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee met May 22
to consider whether to pass a new law to allow a nonreligious group to host a homeless encampment for up to a year, and to fund an environmental assessment of Nickelsville’s current site, located on city-owned land at West Marginal Way SW and Highland Park Way SW.
In May 2011, Nickelsville put down stakes on city-owned property, and nobody seems happy with the outcome. Neighbors complained the camp suffered from lax security, and residents of Nickelsville complained the Seattle Police Department wasn’t doing enough to help them keep the camp safe.
Neither group got much in the way of a response from city leaders, a fact that is not lost on councilmembers themselves.
“For the past two years, it looks like we haven’t been concerned,” said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw.
A looming legal deadline could force them to take action. Two separate parties filed claims against the city for allowing the camp to stay there.
One, by a neighborhood group, asks the courts to decide if the camp’s occupation of city land is illegal. If so, then the city must find a new site for Nickelsville.
In the second, a private property owner whose land abuts the camp has filed a $1.65 million claim, alleging the camp’s presence has decreased the value of his property.
At the May 22 meeting, committee members’ attempts to show leadership often appeared tempered by their struggle to comprehend the land-use legislation Councilmember Nick Licata proposed.
Current temporary land-use permits allow a nonreligious group to host a camp for six months or a neighborhood church to host a camp for any length of time.
The new proposal does not seek to invalidate existing legislation. Licata and legislative aide Lisa Herbold crafted the proposals to address community concerns about Nickelsville.
Herbold explained to the committee that the land-use proposal has a number of critical components: The camp can only be on land owned by the city or managed by a nonreligious private entity that has “demonstrated experience” in managing homeless or low-income people; the camp can have up to 100 residents; the camp can only stay at a location for up to a year; and the camp’s property owner or site manager must engage in community outreach.
The proposal would also require the encampment to be located in downtown Seattle, in industrial zones or mixed-use areas.
Some members of the public who attended the meeting were upset that the legislation did not include residential neighborhoods as a possible site for camps.
Jarvis Capucion, resident of Tent City 3,
said this marginalizes poor people.
“This legislation takes us back decades,” he said.
Another attendee said the nonprofit group SHARE opposed the proposal, since excluding an encampment from residential areas meant 65 percent of the city would be off limits.
Licata said he had met with groups like SHARE in crafting the proposal. He told committee members he was willing to entertain any amendments that would permit one-year encampments in residential neighborhoods.
A hazardous site?
Regardless of whether Nickelsville moves, the site will likely need an environmental assessment. On of Licata’s proposals would fund $150,000 for the work.
City staff say it’s necessary.
“It’s the kind of site where you’d expect to find hazardous materials,” said Chris Potter, with the city’s fleets and facilities department, at the May 22 meeting.
Councilmember Bruce Harrell asked if an environmental assessment could be done with Nickelsville residents on the land.
Potter said yes, but it would be hard. He estimated an assessment could take 12 to 16 weeks.
An environmental review would also help the nonprofit Food Lifeline, which has expressed interest in turning Nickelsville’s current site, along with adjacent land, into a food distribution center. The entire 10 acres is co-owned by the city, the state and the neighboring property owner who filed the $1.65 million claim.
So far, the property owner has agreed to sell to Food Lifeline. State officials have expressed interest, but an agreement hinges on budget decisions still in flux during the special session of the state legislature.
City officials have said they’d like to offer the land to Food Lifeline, but Nickelodeons, who number more than 100, would have to move first. While proposed land-use legislation may create opportunities for future encampments in the city, Licata said Nickelsville has no move-out date.
The committee agreed to revisit both the land-use and environmental review proposals at its June 12 meeting.
Mayor Mike McGinn backs the legislation. In a letter earlier this month, McGinn said his office supported Licata’s land-use proposal, along with an environmental review of the land. McGinn urged the council to do the same (“Mayor breaks silence, offers two plans for next steps at Nickelsville,” RC, May 22).
If the proposals pass out of committee, the full council would hold a June 25 public hearing on new land-use legislation for encampments. The council could vote on the proposals June 26.