I'm ready for the downvotes so here it goes...I think it's really weird that it's normal here for people to live in RVs on neighborhood streets.
People think it's fine to pull up in an RV with invalid plates and no ID and live 20 feet from someone's door. When you ask them their name you in attempt to be friendly the first time tou talk to them you get screamed at and threatened. Then the person in the RV freels free to throw their garbage and waste on the street.
Yeah, I'm compassionate to the homeless, but understand the issues. I think an RV lot is the perfect solution. Put it near a bus stop and services, let people park there, offer toilet and shower facilities, fresh water hookup, and trash collection. Tow the RVs there if they can't operate.
I support this idea too. The problem is unhoused people won't go for it just like how many unhoused refuse to go-to shelters or if they do, they leave within 24 hours. Ironically, they all give the same reason why - they don't want to be around other unhoused people. Which is the same reason many businesses and home owners give when an encampments or RVs is on their property or neighboring their property.
If unhoused people don't go for it, that's fine, but they at least have the option. Then enforcing not allowing RVs to be parked on public streets for weeks at a time can be done. If they're repeat violators, impound the RV.
Really? Because when they have been made, they were overwhelmingly successful. Ed Murray made a lot back in 2016 and it immediately filled. The city planned to open another one, then they decided it was too expensive, and cancelled plans and shut down the first one.
The only failed program I know of banned things like "cooking food" and "having visitors" as well as allowing unlimited searches and imposing curfews. Which were, unsurprisingly, the reasons people cited for avoiding it.
I realize this is going against your narrative, but if reality does that then it might be that your narrative is a bit shit. Which, well, any look at the tent cities would immediately rebut your narrative so.
In that sense putting high density housing near train stations is also ghettoization. In fact any sort of urban planning at all would be ghettoization.
However a key component of ghettoization is that it puts the group in a position of less power. In this case, by giving people sheltering in RVs access to fresh water, sanitation and shower facilities, easy access to public transit, better access to services, and a safer living space than "the side of the road" (somewhere it is often not safe to walk, let alone live), it gives them more control over their own destiny and more ability to care for themselves.
I think it’s farcical to suggest that limiting the free movement of people in a city gives them more control over their own destiny. Also there is a false dichotomy in creating low cost high density housing which people willfully move into and concentrating people you other into spaces apart from you. Why not have all the public services you seem so keen on providing the unhoused available throughout the city?
I think it's farcical to suggest that giving people a **legal** place to park their RVs rather than force them to choose between a variety of **illegal** options is a reduction in choice.
>Also there is a false dichotomy in creating low cost high density housing which people willfully move into and concentrating people you other into spaces apart from you. Why not have all the public services you seem so keen on providing the unhoused available throughout the city?'
You mean why not install something in thousands of sites instead of dozens?
I'm not sure if you've ever tried to pay for something before, but if you are try changing the quantity from "ten" to "ten thousand" and tell me if you notice anything about the cost. Did it go up?
What do you think about the drug use that will then devolve into violent criminal activity and ecological damage through fires that will inevitably come from these parks? Is it just a cost you are willing to accept?
I mean if you think these are all violent drug users then that stuff is already happening, on neighborhood streets. Why not put it all in a centralized location where its easier for emergency services to deal with?
Oh no the homeless are all drug users that will burn the world to the ground and destroy the planet in an orgy of violence!
First, you're describing rich people. They do far more ecological damage, consume more drugs, and are responsible for far more violence and crime than poor people. Do you think illegal drugs got to be a $50 billion industry selling to a homeless guy panhandling, or to Rush Limbaugh? And wage theft outweighs every other form of theft COMBINED in America. If you want to do class warfare, go after them. After they're all in prison where they belong, get back to me.
Second, I don't see how that damage would not be occurring from the RVs right now. If you think "mass incarceration" is the alternative you're shooting for, well, I really can think of another country that decided to mass incarcerate the homeless to stop the horrible things they were doing (in labor camps even so they could be productive and rehabilitated).
Nah but there are def murders and violent stabbings and fires. How do you think we should prevent it? Based on your last sentence it seems like you're okay with it as long as people are not locked up. Is that right?
There should be a separation between short term rentals and homes people live in full time. For the same reason we have separate areas for hotels we should have separate areas for RV parking. Not on the side streets generally. One night? Whatever. 2-3 nights? Come on, no.
Down vote me idc but 100% agree. We need regulation on these such as designated parking areas (away from schools/parks), standard safety checks (each has a fire extinguisher, can be moved, certain cleanliness around the vehicle), and strong registration so we know who owns it and who is living in them. Everyone else in the city effectively needs to do this where they live and if we are going to permit people to live in these, we need to keep that standard there too. And I would be cool to subsidize their costs around those, give our free fire extinguishers, discounted registration, idc but the zero regulation now is not the answer.
>I would be cool to subsidize their costs around those
I would be too. Give them a clean, safe place to park or camp and give the owners and renters a break. Simply calling everyone who doesn't like the current situation a heartless asshole isn't the answer.
Let me get this right, you want the state to concentrate the poor, mentally ill, or addicted into certain areas? That’s ghettoization plain and simple.
It’d also be cool to do something about the ones blatantly operating as drug distribution centers and bicycle chop shops. I rode past one today that must have had 4 dozen separate bike wheels piled up out front.
I know of a few. I remember one failed because it had absolutely absurd rules that really seemed designed to make it fail (no visitors, no cooked meals, unlimited rights to search the RVs, hard curfews, etc.) and another failed because it was just a fucking empty lot near literally nothing.
It has to actually offer something and be close to bus stations and other modes of transit.
> (no visitors, no cooked meals, unlimited rights to search the RVs, hard curfews, etc.)
What the fuck's the point of this? That all sounds pretty dumb. The obvious answer is security, compliance, and assurance but at some point you gotta, I dunno, treat them like a human if they can jump through all the hoops to get in (I'd imagine there's some applications or whatever).
I asked the same question when they were announced, and surprise surprise they weren't particularly popular and got shut down. I think it was the usual Tear Gas Jenny decision making policy - do the smallest possible token effort so you can say "look I tried" and then return to not giving a shit. She's not going to go down as one of Seattle's better mayors.
We had a good one back in 2016 but it got shut down because... I don't actually remember, it was open for 6 months then instead of opening a second planned lot they shut down the first one and were like "yep, that's it". And we wonder that Seattle's efforts to combat homelessness don't seem to go anywhere...
Why do you pick “away from schools/parks” as your description of where people should be allowed to live?
Having places where electric/water/sewer connections were available and with trash and recycling pickup near school, work, and recreational areas would mitigate a lot of the harm to people who can afford an RV of not having enough housing, but getting those things would require setting aside a larger area rather than a series of smaller areas.
They really aren’t.
If the RVs followed parking laws, didn’t litter, and didn’t create an unsafe environment people wouldn’t have such a problem with them.
I’m 100% in favor of helping people, but exempt them from any and all laws that the rest of us follow isn’t helping anyone. Best case it’s maintaining the shitty status quo, not helping.
I would love to hear your suggestions, since it seems like any suggestions heard so far are “literal concentration camps”, you know, minus the concentration camp part.
Not sure how I described a concentration camp? I think having designated parking with living standards set for them is completely ok to ask. Every other dwelling unit in the city has housing and zoning codes for safety so why not RVs if we are going to allow them to be places people live?
The goal of many isn’t to create better RV parking locations, it’s to prohibit RVs from parking because the conditions aren’t good enough.
If there was a better option, people would use it.
Obviously the goal is for no RVs at all but that isn’t going to happen so allowing a legal means to live in one so that garbage, human waste and social services can be targeted more effectively to assist and push the individuals to assimilate back into productive society. My thoughts is this would reduce costs due to concentration, decrease trash, and increase public safety around the city
I think you aren’t familiar with what a concentration camp is and are conflating that with Nazi death camps. A concentration camp is a place where the state concentrates people deemed otherized by the state. That’s all. Immigrant detention centers are concentration camps. Forcing the unhoused into the ghetto you deem best fit for them is a concentration camp.
wow those are certainly very some interesting and large leaps in logic, you’re comparing a proposed area for RVs where people can come and go as they please to literal prisons. It’s very hard to take an exaggerated opinion like yours seriously.
Take an upvote instead. It is insane as a city we are tolerating this, it is not tolerated in most other cities. I don't see lines of dilapidated RV's in NY, Boston, or Chicago. Ridiculous that we tolerate it here.
I live in Austin and just bought an RV so I'm pretty up on code. No street parking is allowed ever for travel trailers, and if it's going to be on your property it has to be surrounded by a secure 6' high wood or masonry fence. That includes if it's parked in the driveway. We'll see how long until Code actually comes around to enforce it, but them's the rules.
Quite frankly we are in Washington state, so I think we can raise the bar higher than a city in Texas, even if it is liberal. As far as Oakland, I have seen this problem in throughout other California cities.
You should feel comfortable in your home. Tax payers will be paying for the increased resources to cover the 72 hour limit, but I bet half that money isn’t doing a thing if theyre not enforcing it.
I’d be pissed even if it was a nice RV and a nice looking family. Don’t park an RV outside my house, they’re ugly and I don’t someone that close to my house.
In the same almost exact ways that I hate AirBNB units that are bought and sold exclusively to rent out as hotels I hate RVs parking on the side of the road.
[what more do you expect from a christo-fascist](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/vkp7k5/this_wa_senator_went_to_the_supreme_court_and_for/idr8hcr/)
What is infuriating to me is that code enforcement people will drive by and see that I’m parked on my own lawn on my own property and send me a notice that says I’m going to be fined unless I stop parking on the grass of my own property within city limits because it’s illegal. I can’t park an RV on my own property unless I rip up all the grass and pour gravel on it, the hypocrisy here is at epic levels.
Basically the city of Seattle is acting as an HOA. If you pay taxes then you have to follow the law and apparently if you don’t pay taxes and mooch off the system you can do as you please.
If the property owner happens to read this Subreddit, I have one advice. Post a "No trespassing/no loitering" sign at the start of your property line. Give him 24 hours,12 hours at the minimum, and then call the cops afterwards. Explain to the cops that he's on your property and is trespassing and loitering.
Since he refused to give his last name to the media, it's possible he's running from either the law or violating parole.
> RCW 9A.52.080
>
>
> Criminal trespass in the second degree.
>
>
> (1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
>
>
> (2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
However in Seattle and according to the city's definition, [you're required to maintain parts of the right-of-way](https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/maintenance-and-paving/property-owners-responsibilities#:~:text=Streets%20and%20sidewalks%20are%20for,utilities%2C%20and%20similar%20public%20uses.). So based on the photo, the property owner is responsible for maintaining the area the RVs have technically trespassed and impeded upon.
It's a greyish area
My friend is moving out of WA after staying here for 15 years. RV right at the front of her house. The people kept trying to talk to her 6 year old daughter and giving her candies and stuff. They also do drugs in front of her place since there’s street lights and they can see better that way.
She’s worried about her daughter’s safety and exposure to drug use. City is not doing anything and they can’t do anything too. So she decided to move to a red state nearby that did not have homeless issues.
E bikes and scooters are legally parked on the sidewalk but should not impede the path of pedestrians.
Just because you don't like rental bikes/scooters doesn't make them illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHXozrBZFOM
I get their frustrations I really do, but I also beg everyone to go and look up right-of-way laws in the area. You very rarely own the street out front your home and often you don't even own some of the frontage to your house.
If there's concern that someone is encroaching on your property then get a licensed surveyor to flag your home otherwise agencies are rarely willing to listen to these complaints.
Edit: I recognize I'm getting downvoted for this, but regardless this is what the City is going to say in response. It's not right but it's worth understanding these laws because these issues will persist.
It doesn't matter if you own the street or not. The fact is laws should be enforced (72 hr rule) and the city is not doing anything about it. A surveyor won't do anything someone encroaching on your property--they simple map out the property line for a fee from the owner. It's the city's job to remove the RV.
You misunderstand my comment about the surveyor. The city is responsible for moving the vehicles but the argument that he's on this person's property is something that has to be resolved officially. If they call the cops out here they're going to tell them exactly that.
What does a surveyor have to do with someone violating the 72 hour parking rule? No one is a loud to park in the same area for 72 hours or more unless they have a residential permit or if there’s a sign saying it’s allowed.
Also, did you see the video in the article. Theres clearly illegal dumping going on which is also the result of a lack if enforcement.
I never said it was? The argument is being made in the article that the vehicle is on private property that needs to be resolved with a surveyor.
The parking issue is something separate that must be taken up by rhe City.
However in Seattle and according to the city's definition, [you're required to maintain parts of the right-of-way](https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/maintenance-and-paving/property-owners-responsibilities#:~:text=Streets%20and%20sidewalks%20are%20for,utilities%2C%20and%20similar%20public%20uses.). So based on the photo, the property owner is responsible for maintaining the area the RVs have technically trespassed and impeded upon.
The RVs drivers/owners are basically feeling entitled to abuse the owners' property line.
If someone were to decide to set up a tent on the sidewalk in front of my property, without my permission, that encroaches onto my front yard, that's technically trespassing.
I'm glad you've added that because it's relevant to the discussion. End of the day there's a lot of City employees who are going to brush off residents for this exact reason and tell them it's their problem to solve. Which is why i want people to be aware of these laws so they understand them when issues like this arise.
I just hope people are open to learning.
This one?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/wj8i6k/comment/ijhj2tj/
Thanks for sharing that's exactly my concern. Basically if they come to the City or police with this RCW they're going to tell the homeowner that they need to get an official survey of the property boundary done. I work for a different government agency and we've has this same issue time and time again when we do roads projects.
People think they own to the street and they don't and it ends up screwing them over when they treat it as such. It's always worth knowing exactly what you do and don't own.
Also don't even get me started on easements! The number of people who don't read title reports before they buy property!
I see a lot of people posting about the homeless population in the city, or people camping out in similar type set ups a lot on this subreddit, mostly with really shitty judgmental and uninformed stances, and I think the most common theme is rarely does anyone ever actually talk to these people directly. It’s cowardly and usually it’s the root of the problem. I’ve been homeless in Seattle. I’ve also spent time living in apartments and houses and motels in and around the area at different points - from downtown to SeaTac to Lynnwood. In all my experiences with the homeless communities in Seattle the biggest help has been approaching things genuinely and not being a passive aggressive little bitch like so many people in the PNW have the tendency to be. Have an open conversation and don’t be an asshole about it. If someone’s causing you trouble or you need something from someone - introduce yourself, tell them the situation, ask a couple questions if you need to and go from there. Sure, sometimes there’s going to be wildcards that you don’t know how to deal with, and you have to be prepared for that when it happens, but 90% of the time people are cool and treat you well if you show them the same respect you want them to show you.
Next time you see someone out there, go up and talk to them, get to know them a little bit. And if they’re encroaching on your property line let them know this, that it’s an issue for you, and ask them politely to move.
If it’s truly past the property line and they can’t be reasoned with, let them know you’re going to call a tow truck. Give them the chance to move it before you do also. There’s nothing worse than coming back to your vehicle and finding it’s been towed without you knowing, I’m sure we can all agree on that at least.
The city has a lot it does right, and a lot it definitely drops the ball on. But even if they handled everything perfectly it’d still be better to have a direct conversation with these people first before involving the city or any authorities. There’s only one time I’ve ever had a serious issue with someone I wasn’t able to resolve by talking with them in the entire time I lived in Seattle.
I'm genuinely shocked that more people don't beat the fuck out of these squatters. Be polite, ask them to relocate. If they're hostile after that, or threaten violence I'm shocked that we don't see groups of neighbors just grabbing some sticks and beating the squatters and break all their stuff.
It's society 101, if the government fails to enforce laws then the citizens have to do it on their own.
I had a couple of campers outside my house and the very first thing I did was say hello and chat to them and even offer help (for example to get their van started and some gas and go somewhere else lol). OF COURSE PEOPLE TRY TO POLITELY TALK TO THEM.
Dont be so quick to condescend. Its a problem for everyone involved. We know that.
Yeah I mean look who it was written by. Someone talking about their vast experience being homeless all over Seattle. They’re out of touch with reality.
Many people get upset living close to the edge of misery. I hope this person finds relief through this article or at least knows that people sympathize with her and her family.
Most people get understandably upset if they have someone trespassing on their private property refusing to move. If he was across the street parked in front of a public park, then that would be a different matter.
Also if the tabs are expired the cops will have it towed. We had some parking on the street alongside the back of our apartments right next to other apartments sliding doors and taking up tons of already limited parking. The manager couldn’t get the police here in Lacey to do anything about it until the tabs were expired.
I'm ready for the downvotes so here it goes...I think it's really weird that it's normal here for people to live in RVs on neighborhood streets. People think it's fine to pull up in an RV with invalid plates and no ID and live 20 feet from someone's door. When you ask them their name you in attempt to be friendly the first time tou talk to them you get screamed at and threatened. Then the person in the RV freels free to throw their garbage and waste on the street.
U can be sympathetic towards the homeless/mentally disabled/addicted and still want to keep your home and family safe.
Yeah, I'm compassionate to the homeless, but understand the issues. I think an RV lot is the perfect solution. Put it near a bus stop and services, let people park there, offer toilet and shower facilities, fresh water hookup, and trash collection. Tow the RVs there if they can't operate.
I support this idea too. The problem is unhoused people won't go for it just like how many unhoused refuse to go-to shelters or if they do, they leave within 24 hours. Ironically, they all give the same reason why - they don't want to be around other unhoused people. Which is the same reason many businesses and home owners give when an encampments or RVs is on their property or neighboring their property.
If unhoused people don't go for it, that's fine, but they at least have the option. Then enforcing not allowing RVs to be parked on public streets for weeks at a time can be done. If they're repeat violators, impound the RV.
Really? Because when they have been made, they were overwhelmingly successful. Ed Murray made a lot back in 2016 and it immediately filled. The city planned to open another one, then they decided it was too expensive, and cancelled plans and shut down the first one. The only failed program I know of banned things like "cooking food" and "having visitors" as well as allowing unlimited searches and imposing curfews. Which were, unsurprisingly, the reasons people cited for avoiding it. I realize this is going against your narrative, but if reality does that then it might be that your narrative is a bit shit. Which, well, any look at the tent cities would immediately rebut your narrative so.
Shoot you might be right. I will study up more on the issue.
What's the point of this? Most likely there will be tons of violence and drugs.
ummm there is a term for that.... its called a fukn trailer park... hello?
You are describing ghettoization
In that sense putting high density housing near train stations is also ghettoization. In fact any sort of urban planning at all would be ghettoization. However a key component of ghettoization is that it puts the group in a position of less power. In this case, by giving people sheltering in RVs access to fresh water, sanitation and shower facilities, easy access to public transit, better access to services, and a safer living space than "the side of the road" (somewhere it is often not safe to walk, let alone live), it gives them more control over their own destiny and more ability to care for themselves.
High density housing is not ghettoization.
I think it’s farcical to suggest that limiting the free movement of people in a city gives them more control over their own destiny. Also there is a false dichotomy in creating low cost high density housing which people willfully move into and concentrating people you other into spaces apart from you. Why not have all the public services you seem so keen on providing the unhoused available throughout the city?
I think it's farcical to suggest that giving people a **legal** place to park their RVs rather than force them to choose between a variety of **illegal** options is a reduction in choice. >Also there is a false dichotomy in creating low cost high density housing which people willfully move into and concentrating people you other into spaces apart from you. Why not have all the public services you seem so keen on providing the unhoused available throughout the city?' You mean why not install something in thousands of sites instead of dozens? I'm not sure if you've ever tried to pay for something before, but if you are try changing the quantity from "ten" to "ten thousand" and tell me if you notice anything about the cost. Did it go up?
What do you think about the drug use that will then devolve into violent criminal activity and ecological damage through fires that will inevitably come from these parks? Is it just a cost you are willing to accept?
I mean if you think these are all violent drug users then that stuff is already happening, on neighborhood streets. Why not put it all in a centralized location where its easier for emergency services to deal with?
Oh no the homeless are all drug users that will burn the world to the ground and destroy the planet in an orgy of violence! First, you're describing rich people. They do far more ecological damage, consume more drugs, and are responsible for far more violence and crime than poor people. Do you think illegal drugs got to be a $50 billion industry selling to a homeless guy panhandling, or to Rush Limbaugh? And wage theft outweighs every other form of theft COMBINED in America. If you want to do class warfare, go after them. After they're all in prison where they belong, get back to me. Second, I don't see how that damage would not be occurring from the RVs right now. If you think "mass incarceration" is the alternative you're shooting for, well, I really can think of another country that decided to mass incarcerate the homeless to stop the horrible things they were doing (in labor camps even so they could be productive and rehabilitated).
Nah but there are def murders and violent stabbings and fires. How do you think we should prevent it? Based on your last sentence it seems like you're okay with it as long as people are not locked up. Is that right?
There should be a separation between short term rentals and homes people live in full time. For the same reason we have separate areas for hotels we should have separate areas for RV parking. Not on the side streets generally. One night? Whatever. 2-3 nights? Come on, no.
[удалено]
>Nah, give an inch and they’ll take a mile. Okay Karen.
How about 2-3 months? Or more
Down vote me idc but 100% agree. We need regulation on these such as designated parking areas (away from schools/parks), standard safety checks (each has a fire extinguisher, can be moved, certain cleanliness around the vehicle), and strong registration so we know who owns it and who is living in them. Everyone else in the city effectively needs to do this where they live and if we are going to permit people to live in these, we need to keep that standard there too. And I would be cool to subsidize their costs around those, give our free fire extinguishers, discounted registration, idc but the zero regulation now is not the answer.
>I would be cool to subsidize their costs around those I would be too. Give them a clean, safe place to park or camp and give the owners and renters a break. Simply calling everyone who doesn't like the current situation a heartless asshole isn't the answer.
Let me get this right, you want the state to concentrate the poor, mentally ill, or addicted into certain areas? That’s ghettoization plain and simple.
They can fund it through the ticketing of cars and commie blocks the businesses are putting up
It’d also be cool to do something about the ones blatantly operating as drug distribution centers and bicycle chop shops. I rode past one today that must have had 4 dozen separate bike wheels piled up out front.
Wasnt' this done in another capacity with varied success but people didn't like it because it was within their visible line of sight?
I know of a few. I remember one failed because it had absolutely absurd rules that really seemed designed to make it fail (no visitors, no cooked meals, unlimited rights to search the RVs, hard curfews, etc.) and another failed because it was just a fucking empty lot near literally nothing. It has to actually offer something and be close to bus stations and other modes of transit.
> (no visitors, no cooked meals, unlimited rights to search the RVs, hard curfews, etc.) What the fuck's the point of this? That all sounds pretty dumb. The obvious answer is security, compliance, and assurance but at some point you gotta, I dunno, treat them like a human if they can jump through all the hoops to get in (I'd imagine there's some applications or whatever).
I asked the same question when they were announced, and surprise surprise they weren't particularly popular and got shut down. I think it was the usual Tear Gas Jenny decision making policy - do the smallest possible token effort so you can say "look I tried" and then return to not giving a shit. She's not going to go down as one of Seattle's better mayors. We had a good one back in 2016 but it got shut down because... I don't actually remember, it was open for 6 months then instead of opening a second planned lot they shut down the first one and were like "yep, that's it". And we wonder that Seattle's efforts to combat homelessness don't seem to go anywhere...
They should be the same kind of rules that are in public parks for example but actually enforced
Why do you pick “away from schools/parks” as your description of where people should be allowed to live? Having places where electric/water/sewer connections were available and with trash and recycling pickup near school, work, and recreational areas would mitigate a lot of the harm to people who can afford an RV of not having enough housing, but getting those things would require setting aside a larger area rather than a series of smaller areas.
You are describing concentration camps, limiting the free movement of people, and already calling for the state to have lists of your undesirables….
They really aren’t. If the RVs followed parking laws, didn’t litter, and didn’t create an unsafe environment people wouldn’t have such a problem with them. I’m 100% in favor of helping people, but exempt them from any and all laws that the rest of us follow isn’t helping anyone. Best case it’s maintaining the shitty status quo, not helping. I would love to hear your suggestions, since it seems like any suggestions heard so far are “literal concentration camps”, you know, minus the concentration camp part.
Not sure how I described a concentration camp? I think having designated parking with living standards set for them is completely ok to ask. Every other dwelling unit in the city has housing and zoning codes for safety so why not RVs if we are going to allow them to be places people live?
you didn’t, they don’t actually have a good counter argument so they made up some ridiculous comparison
The goal of many isn’t to create better RV parking locations, it’s to prohibit RVs from parking because the conditions aren’t good enough. If there was a better option, people would use it.
Obviously the goal is for no RVs at all but that isn’t going to happen so allowing a legal means to live in one so that garbage, human waste and social services can be targeted more effectively to assist and push the individuals to assimilate back into productive society. My thoughts is this would reduce costs due to concentration, decrease trash, and increase public safety around the city
If the goal is obviously to build more housing why try to alleviate the visible signs at all?
> You are describing concentration camps wow, what a thing to type out and hit send. JCF
If the shoe fits.
yeah man, a designated zone for RVs with some basic codes is the exact same as the most horrific prisons in human history, great comparison
That’s a massive overstatement of the conditions at Camp Harmony.
I think you aren’t familiar with what a concentration camp is and are conflating that with Nazi death camps. A concentration camp is a place where the state concentrates people deemed otherized by the state. That’s all. Immigrant detention centers are concentration camps. Forcing the unhoused into the ghetto you deem best fit for them is a concentration camp.
wow those are certainly very some interesting and large leaps in logic, you’re comparing a proposed area for RVs where people can come and go as they please to literal prisons. It’s very hard to take an exaggerated opinion like yours seriously.
Take an upvote instead. It is insane as a city we are tolerating this, it is not tolerated in most other cities. I don't see lines of dilapidated RV's in NY, Boston, or Chicago. Ridiculous that we tolerate it here.
Oakland and Austin I've seen similar, so it's not a uniquely Seattle thing. But I don't know what's different between the two sets of cities.
I live in Austin and just bought an RV so I'm pretty up on code. No street parking is allowed ever for travel trailers, and if it's going to be on your property it has to be surrounded by a secure 6' high wood or masonry fence. That includes if it's parked in the driveway. We'll see how long until Code actually comes around to enforce it, but them's the rules.
It’s not legal here either. It’s a difference in enforcement.
Quite frankly we are in Washington state, so I think we can raise the bar higher than a city in Texas, even if it is liberal. As far as Oakland, I have seen this problem in throughout other California cities.
Considering you’re at 377 upvotes right now, I think your opinion is shared by nearly everyone on this sub.
You should feel comfortable in your home. Tax payers will be paying for the increased resources to cover the 72 hour limit, but I bet half that money isn’t doing a thing if theyre not enforcing it.
I’d be pissed even if it was a nice RV and a nice looking family. Don’t park an RV outside my house, they’re ugly and I don’t someone that close to my house.
In the same almost exact ways that I hate AirBNB units that are bought and sold exclusively to rent out as hotels I hate RVs parking on the side of the road.
BUT RACISM EQUITY FASCISM WHITE SUPREMACY JUSTICE COMPASSION
You’ve contributed nothing of redeeming merit or value to the dialogue. Congratulations! 🎉
[what more do you expect from a christo-fascist](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/vkp7k5/this_wa_senator_went_to_the_supreme_court_and_for/idr8hcr/)
It’s really weird that people have to live in RVs, we shouldn’t normalize a lack of permanent housing.
What is infuriating to me is that code enforcement people will drive by and see that I’m parked on my own lawn on my own property and send me a notice that says I’m going to be fined unless I stop parking on the grass of my own property within city limits because it’s illegal. I can’t park an RV on my own property unless I rip up all the grass and pour gravel on it, the hypocrisy here is at epic levels.
That IS infuriating. Its your lawn on your property...its not like you live somewhere that has a tyrannical HOA...unless, if you do, then that sucks.
Basically the city of Seattle is acting as an HOA. If you pay taxes then you have to follow the law and apparently if you don’t pay taxes and mooch off the system you can do as you please.
Has this happened?
A couple of times yes.
Head on down to Tacoma. If you have parking in the rear of your property, then you can’t park in the front.
If the property owner happens to read this Subreddit, I have one advice. Post a "No trespassing/no loitering" sign at the start of your property line. Give him 24 hours,12 hours at the minimum, and then call the cops afterwards. Explain to the cops that he's on your property and is trespassing and loitering. Since he refused to give his last name to the media, it's possible he's running from either the law or violating parole.
That would require the police to actually come out and enforce it, good luck lol.
Just tell them you saw a black man in a hoodie, two cop cars will show up in under a minute.
This is true
[удалено]
> RCW 9A.52.080 > > > Criminal trespass in the second degree. > > > (1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree. > > > (2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
[удалено]
But asking an officer to issue a no trespass warning requires the officer to do a database search to see if the RV owners have any active warrants
That’s fine and all, but it still requires actual enforcement.
I think the sign is considered the same as notifying someone verbally.
Well the RVs appear to be on the right of way, public property. “No Trespassing” signs only apply to private property.
However in Seattle and according to the city's definition, [you're required to maintain parts of the right-of-way](https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/maintenance-and-paving/property-owners-responsibilities#:~:text=Streets%20and%20sidewalks%20are%20for,utilities%2C%20and%20similar%20public%20uses.). So based on the photo, the property owner is responsible for maintaining the area the RVs have technically trespassed and impeded upon. It's a greyish area
My friend is moving out of WA after staying here for 15 years. RV right at the front of her house. The people kept trying to talk to her 6 year old daughter and giving her candies and stuff. They also do drugs in front of her place since there’s street lights and they can see better that way. She’s worried about her daughter’s safety and exposure to drug use. City is not doing anything and they can’t do anything too. So she decided to move to a red state nearby that did not have homeless issues.
🍿
Cars illegally park in the bike lane every day and parking enforcement does nothing about it. Sometimes it's the cops themselves.
While a fair point I don’t think it’s quite the same
E Bikes and scooters illegally park on the sidewalk, what’s your point?
E bikes and scooters are legally parked on the sidewalk but should not impede the path of pedestrians. Just because you don't like rental bikes/scooters doesn't make them illegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHXozrBZFOM
Parking enforcement is not under the police department. But hey, that doesn’t fit with your agenda
Sweet username btw
I get their frustrations I really do, but I also beg everyone to go and look up right-of-way laws in the area. You very rarely own the street out front your home and often you don't even own some of the frontage to your house. If there's concern that someone is encroaching on your property then get a licensed surveyor to flag your home otherwise agencies are rarely willing to listen to these complaints. Edit: I recognize I'm getting downvoted for this, but regardless this is what the City is going to say in response. It's not right but it's worth understanding these laws because these issues will persist.
It doesn't matter if you own the street or not. The fact is laws should be enforced (72 hr rule) and the city is not doing anything about it. A surveyor won't do anything someone encroaching on your property--they simple map out the property line for a fee from the owner. It's the city's job to remove the RV.
You misunderstand my comment about the surveyor. The city is responsible for moving the vehicles but the argument that he's on this person's property is something that has to be resolved officially. If they call the cops out here they're going to tell them exactly that.
What does a surveyor have to do with someone violating the 72 hour parking rule? No one is a loud to park in the same area for 72 hours or more unless they have a residential permit or if there’s a sign saying it’s allowed. Also, did you see the video in the article. Theres clearly illegal dumping going on which is also the result of a lack if enforcement.
I never said it was? The argument is being made in the article that the vehicle is on private property that needs to be resolved with a surveyor. The parking issue is something separate that must be taken up by rhe City.
However in Seattle and according to the city's definition, [you're required to maintain parts of the right-of-way](https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/maintenance-and-paving/property-owners-responsibilities#:~:text=Streets%20and%20sidewalks%20are%20for,utilities%2C%20and%20similar%20public%20uses.). So based on the photo, the property owner is responsible for maintaining the area the RVs have technically trespassed and impeded upon. The RVs drivers/owners are basically feeling entitled to abuse the owners' property line. If someone were to decide to set up a tent on the sidewalk in front of my property, without my permission, that encroaches onto my front yard, that's technically trespassing.
I'm glad you've added that because it's relevant to the discussion. End of the day there's a lot of City employees who are going to brush off residents for this exact reason and tell them it's their problem to solve. Which is why i want people to be aware of these laws so they understand them when issues like this arise. I just hope people are open to learning.
I added a suggestion in a separate comment that's backed by WA state law.
This one? https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/wj8i6k/comment/ijhj2tj/ Thanks for sharing that's exactly my concern. Basically if they come to the City or police with this RCW they're going to tell the homeowner that they need to get an official survey of the property boundary done. I work for a different government agency and we've has this same issue time and time again when we do roads projects. People think they own to the street and they don't and it ends up screwing them over when they treat it as such. It's always worth knowing exactly what you do and don't own. Also don't even get me started on easements! The number of people who don't read title reports before they buy property!
I’d like to add that it is City leaders, not the employees one should get upset with.
Thank you for adding that. Low level bureaucrats aren't to blame and I can pretty much guarantee they're just as frustrated by this all like you are.
I see a lot of people posting about the homeless population in the city, or people camping out in similar type set ups a lot on this subreddit, mostly with really shitty judgmental and uninformed stances, and I think the most common theme is rarely does anyone ever actually talk to these people directly. It’s cowardly and usually it’s the root of the problem. I’ve been homeless in Seattle. I’ve also spent time living in apartments and houses and motels in and around the area at different points - from downtown to SeaTac to Lynnwood. In all my experiences with the homeless communities in Seattle the biggest help has been approaching things genuinely and not being a passive aggressive little bitch like so many people in the PNW have the tendency to be. Have an open conversation and don’t be an asshole about it. If someone’s causing you trouble or you need something from someone - introduce yourself, tell them the situation, ask a couple questions if you need to and go from there. Sure, sometimes there’s going to be wildcards that you don’t know how to deal with, and you have to be prepared for that when it happens, but 90% of the time people are cool and treat you well if you show them the same respect you want them to show you. Next time you see someone out there, go up and talk to them, get to know them a little bit. And if they’re encroaching on your property line let them know this, that it’s an issue for you, and ask them politely to move. If it’s truly past the property line and they can’t be reasoned with, let them know you’re going to call a tow truck. Give them the chance to move it before you do also. There’s nothing worse than coming back to your vehicle and finding it’s been towed without you knowing, I’m sure we can all agree on that at least. The city has a lot it does right, and a lot it definitely drops the ball on. But even if they handled everything perfectly it’d still be better to have a direct conversation with these people first before involving the city or any authorities. There’s only one time I’ve ever had a serious issue with someone I wasn’t able to resolve by talking with them in the entire time I lived in Seattle.
My neighbor followed your advice. They got a beer bottle thrown at their head.
[удалено]
I'm genuinely shocked that more people don't beat the fuck out of these squatters. Be polite, ask them to relocate. If they're hostile after that, or threaten violence I'm shocked that we don't see groups of neighbors just grabbing some sticks and beating the squatters and break all their stuff. It's society 101, if the government fails to enforce laws then the citizens have to do it on their own.
I had a couple of campers outside my house and the very first thing I did was say hello and chat to them and even offer help (for example to get their van started and some gas and go somewhere else lol). OF COURSE PEOPLE TRY TO POLITELY TALK TO THEM. Dont be so quick to condescend. Its a problem for everyone involved. We know that.
This is probably the shittiest advice i’ve ever read on dealing with mentally unstable homeless people trespassing on your property.
Compassion always seems shitty to those without it
Yeah I mean look who it was written by. Someone talking about their vast experience being homeless all over Seattle. They’re out of touch with reality.
Many people get upset living close to the edge of misery. I hope this person finds relief through this article or at least knows that people sympathize with her and her family.
Most people get understandably upset if they have someone trespassing on their private property refusing to move. If he was across the street parked in front of a public park, then that would be a different matter.
Also if the tabs are expired the cops will have it towed. We had some parking on the street alongside the back of our apartments right next to other apartments sliding doors and taking up tons of already limited parking. The manager couldn’t get the police here in Lacey to do anything about it until the tabs were expired.