Congregation only. So scr*w you neighbors!

Seems like all parties made a good faith effort to come to an agreement on the hosting of the SHARE shelter.

Personally, I hope the congregation sees their way clear to agree to this much needed shelter. It seems rather unfair to blame these 20 men for the bad behavior of others which they had nothing to do with.

I live right next to the church and think it is extremely unfair that the neighbors have no say, or get to vote. I am sure 90% of the congregation do not live within ten blocks of the church.

Perhaps I should stand outside the church with a table on the 7th and have ballots for people that live near to vote. I wonder if that will make a difference.

I also wonder if they still refuse to screen the 20 guys for sex offenders.

Maybe you should, Shane. Or better yet, first go door-to-door and make sure all your neighbors know what's coming.

Why does Ballard have to be the place where Seattle dumps ALL its homeless? Ballard already has way too many transients here. I don't see the same groups of vagrants hanging out in other neighborhoods around the city. Take a walk (if you dare) or drive around Balard on any day - you'll see groups of sketchy looking bums drinking, doing drug deals, and passed out, on one block after another (try the blocks around the abandoned Sunset Bowl - there are bums living on the sidewalks on all four sides!).

Why not send some of the bums to go live on the Mayor's block in West Seattle, and other neighborhoods?

WHY IS SEATTLE DUMPING ALL THE HOMELESS IN BALLRD?

I'll tell you why -- because the people who live here don't push back. Until this neighborhood says "NO MORE" they are going to keep adding one more shelter and soup kitchen after another. If it's not next door to your house this time, it will be eventually.

Well it looks like Steve Grumm from Our Redeemers is not willing to provide anymore information. They want to do everything behind closed doors and not inform the media to their actions. They say they are speaking to their neighbors, but I live right by the church and have yet to have a call, letter, flyer, or anything from Steve.

I welcome them to talk to me and my neighbors. They should not say they are talking to the neighborhood when really they aren't.

I think if this church allows SHARE to have this shelter without doing the background checks WHEN IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THEY HAVE DONE BACKGROUND CHECKS AT OTHER LOCATIONS, then I think this neighborhood should take some sort of action against the church. It clearly says to me that SHARE has something to hide since they did background checks at other locations but NOT this location. That is suspicious to me and the church has no right to make this decision for its neighbors.

Thank you for your fair-minded response. I would like to be in touch with you as I thought I was the only one with a positive attitude about the shelter. It is much-needed indeed.

Just to recap, SHARE currently runs outstanding warrant and sex offender checks at their Tent City 4 locations on the Eastside. They've been doing this since 2004. The checks are run for FREE for SHARE by King County.

Please view the current permit for Tent City 4 (which is now in Redmond at St. Jude's) to see that the requirement for warrant/sex offender checks is part of the permit.

That permit can be viewed here:
http://www.redmond.gov/cityservices/pdfs/L09006...

In addition, ask yourselves why it is that representatives from SHARE stood up before this community and knowingly lied when they said they were unable to run sex offender checks because of the cost involved?

Sadly I'm guessing that the majority of the members of the church that will be voting on this issue live nowhere near the location and are therefore not impacted by the decision that they will make.

The neighbors should have a voice and representation. If that means standing out in front of that church on the evening they will take the vote, then so be it. Maybe passing out flyers with factual information regarding SHARE and pointing to the fact that they are running checks in Redmond and that this community deserves equal treatment.

As long as more and more support services for the homeless are created in Ballard, the transient population will increase there. The homeless from all around go and hang out where the getting is good.

We have to accept the truth that we will never be able to support every homeless individual, because the more services you create to try to address the current numbers, the more homeless people show up. We have to decide on a certain level of support and say that's enough. Or at least enough for a particular area. Otherwise, a neighborhood will be overrun by transients. I don't think Ballard home and business owners signed up to turn their neighborhood into some homeless enclave.

A statistical snapshot of homeless people in Seattle downtown shelters revealed a large percentage came from outside the city and even the state. One of the main factors which brought them here was what they heard about the support services provided for transients.

For those of you in support of allowing SHARE to move to this church without conducting Level 3 sex offender checks, please read this story which appears online at the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...

The headline reads, "Level 3 Sex offender Accused of Propositioning Teens in Kirkland."

What the article fails to report, but what is available by doing a quick check of the King County sex offender registry is that this scum, who was previously convicted of rape is registered as "HOMELESS."
http://www.metrokc.gov/SexOffender/search_name_...

Do you still think it's a good idea that SHARE is refusing to run the checks at this church?

Basically, if you're looking for a place to live and see a Labor Ready, keep moving. A Labor Ready is an indicator a neighborhood has a sizeable homeless population and will attract more because of the Labor Ready. Anyone see a pattern here?

These shelters think that their rules are enough to control the behavior of their "clients" in the immediate neighborhood? If the homeless were good at following rules and exercising a modicum of self control, they wouldn't be homeless.

And you think these shelters and other homeless facilities are going to call the police when they have a problem their rules won't handle? No, because they don't want to generate negative stats and publicity. They'll try to handle it internally.

I know of several instances when Tent City residents have commited crimes in their immediate neighborood and it wasn't brought to the attention of the host church. The Tent City "Council" conducted a "hearing".

Shouldn't the majority count if this is a democracy?

If they are holding a vote then I guess they are believers of democracy, however it is pointless if the majority of the neighborhood oppose this shelter.

I for one will be protesting outside the shelter if it moves there. I like the comment I read somewhere about 'Love Thy Neighbor' that made me laugh.

Steve Grumm should stick to his word, and push SHARE to conduct sex offender checks, as well as state that the church will except responsibility for the shelter. I think then most of us would be ok with a temporary shelter.

Here is another article on the same Level 3 sex offender:
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/kir/news/...

Note that after the comment was made pointing out that the Level 3 sex offender was actually last registered as "HOMELESS" the Kirkland Reporter posted that they update their story to reflect that information. In addition, they spoke with a King County Sheriff's spokesperson who confirmed the information provided by saying:
A sex offender registry Website identifies Wagner as non-compliant and Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart confirmed Wagner is currently listed as homeless

"NON-COMPLIANT" That means this convicted rapist, Level 3 Sex offender who registered as "HOMELESS" in Seattle failed to check in as required.

Anyone still think SHARE should stay at this church while being allowed to refuse running FREE sex offender checks ?

If the neighbors of the church property do not want a group of homeless men moving in, then the neighborhood should have the final say. A shelter does not improve the area. Ballard doesn't want it and doesn't need it.

Go back to civics class.
Democracy does not mean that everybody gets to vote and those with the most votes win. There is more to it than that.
Go ahead and protest - get involved in any way you feel comfortable with. But don't fight battles in fear of that which you don't understand.

If this church wants to help the homeless, then do it in a way where they also bear the burden of that mission. It's disgusting that they are trying to locate this shelter in a vacant building that is far away from their church and homes. That is hypocrisy, not Christianity.

There is nothing commendable about voting to put a shelter in someone else's neighborhood. Any selfish group can do that. If you want to impress people with your commitment to helping the homeless, open up your own homes to the homeless. Or maybe, host the shelter at the building that actually serves as a church.

This feels too much like they want to feel good about helping the homeless, but they don't want to impact their own homes or church.

There will not be an impact. You are confusing the sober working poor who are staying in SHARE shelters and communte everyday by bus to their jobs with the criminals drug addicts and panhandlers who plague Ballard and who by the way would not last 5mn in such a shelter which requires sobriety and decent behavior.

This church has hosted tent city in it's parking lot, opened up it's multi-purpose rooms to a women and children's shelter and feed the homeless in it's building many times. It also acts as a distribition center for the Ballard Food Bank. All this info is easy to find if you looked for it.