[Previous entry: "Discovering Buddhist Art at SAAM"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Things bosses should and shouldn't say"]

Jul 28, 2003 2:45:47 PM Archived Entry: "Crime in Seattle"

I became convinced about a year ago that Seattle was heading down the toliet but no one wanted to admit it. The problem is that the rich people who live in Seattle have a very nice quality of life, with these extremely friendly neighbors who say "hi" to each other as they walk around their well manicured streets, picking up garbage as they go. They live in a bubble about the rest of Seattle, where junkies break in through the back door (while you're gardening out front) and make off with your purse and TV set, where your street-parked car is like a $1000 bill just waiting to be set free, and selling drugs on the street corner is just another summer job. What kills me is how complicit the Seattle police are in this problem. Look at 3rd and Pine, Occidental Park, 2nd and Pike, 12th and Jefferson. I've been around long enough now that I know people aren't just "hanging out." They're dealing. They're shaking people down when they can get away with it. But as long as it's just poor folks that get troubled, rich, white Seattle doesn't care.

Was it three years ago that packs of black kids were beating up random white guys in Belltown? They had been roaming 23rd and Cherry earlier that year, but they were just picking on old Asian grannies with their pension checks, so it didn't get coverage. I think these were the same type of folks that came to Seattle for Mardi Gras in 2001 and killed Christopher Kime. (This is based on a comment I heard from the business owner I talked to who said he heard kids in the parking lot near his business saying they'd come up - from Tacoma? - to "break up whities party." This comment has disturbed me for years.)

Anyway, the latest is that two people were stabbled and one shot after the Torchlight Parade. But this incident has received very little coverage. Is it because the victims weren't white? (In fact, at least one of them was.) I suspect it's because 1) it happened after the newscasts were done and - more importantly - 2) because it doesn't fit in with the Seattle view of "how great our city is." Look at this coverage in the Seattle Times - don't they seem to be skipping the real news story? There are three paragraphs of news and 20 of fluff!

Seattle is never going to dig out of the problems it is having until the police and the city council admit there are real problems out there, problems that won't just go away if we turn our backs on them. As long as the police continue their policies of tolerating illegal activities -- as long as they occur in places where the neighbors don't complain about it -- this city will continue to have crap like this going down.

Speaking of which, I've appended a letter I wrote to the city opposing a proposal to open up my neighborhood to more low income housing. Give me a fucking break, we already have way too much!

http://www4.ci.seattle.wa.us/housing/ResponseMailer.htm

Comments on draft Geographic Policies for 2004 Consolidated Plan Update . . . .

I am against plans to end the requirements for community support of housing developments with more than 50% of the units subsidized in the Central District, specifically within my neighborhood, Squire Park. I have several reasons for this objections.

First, this neighborhood is already chock-a-block with subsidized units. Just drive down Yesler and you can see tons of them within about half a mile of each other, and there are more scattered throughout the neighborhood. Common sense dictates that these units be dispersed more widely throughout the city of Seattle, and it is clear to me that the Central District has already absorbed far more than its share.

Second, requiring community support means that developers who wish to put subsidized housing in the neighborhood are required to meet OUR needs as well as their need to put build in a place where land is fairly cheap compared to the rest of the city. This means that we are able to keep groups or individuals that we feel are not good landlords out, which is very important to us. In addition, it gives us the opportunity to have input into developments that we do generally support.

Third, for the sake of the people who would be living in these developments, why do you want to send more of them here? This is still not a very good neighborhood to live in. Drug sales and prostitution are rampant, and the low quality of life that we experience in Squire Park is quite different from that only a mile or so away in neighborhoods like Madrona and Capitol Hill. We have our cars broken into frequently and our kids hassled by dealers while they're waiting at the bus stop. Do you think anyone deserves to live like this? Why not give poor people a chance to live in a better neighborhood?

I disagree with the argument that the Central District needs more low income housing so that the people that grew up here can stay here. Why not give them an opportunity to live some place better, and help Seattle become a more integrated city, instead of keeping low-income people living in the ghetto?

In summary, I wish to keep the rules limiting the addition of further low income housing units as they are, especially as they relate to the Central Area. If there is no community support for putting the project in, they must not happen.

"Only weak men fear able women" - Marion Boyars