by Tobias Coughlin-Bogue
(This article was originally published on Real Change and has been reprinted under an agreement.)
On June 28, the newly formed Services Not Sweeps Coalition (SNSC) announced a campaign to ban wintertime sweeps and sweeps during extreme weather events. Similar protections exist in Seattle for renters at risk of eviction, the coalition's announcement noted, before going on to argue that those protections should be extended to "our community members who are the most vulnerable."
The coalition consists of five organizations, all of which work directly with homeless people who experience sweeps. It consists of Real Change, Stop the Sweeps, Be:Seattle, Washington Community Action Network (CAN), and SHARE/WHEEL.
"Too many of my friends have died over the last decade from hypothermia after being swept from their previously safe locations," said Dee Powers, a program coordinator at Be:Seattle and former vehicle resident, in the announcement. "This city does not have shelter capacity to hold each and every person currently living outdoors, and we cannot in good conscience continue sweeps during severe weather knowing that we are taking away a person's best chance of survival."
While it may seem counterintuitive to argue for allowing someone to remain in place outside, reporting in this newspaper has shown that sweeps rarely result in affected individuals accepting shelter (or, for that matter, getting it even when they've accepted a referral). Forcing people to pack up and move, the thinking goes, deprives them of whatever ad hoc measures they've put in place to protect against smoke, heat, or extreme cold.
The announcement ends with a call to action that begins, "The coalition is launching this campaign with an action network email blast, urging folks to email city council in support of this campaign."
Given that four council seats are wide open this election cycle and incumbents Tammy Morales, Dan Strauss, and Andrew Lewis are facing competition, that council will look very different very soon. While the campaign's proposal is just that at the moment — a proposal — we wanted to see where the nearly 50 active City Council candidates stand on ending extreme weather sweeps. So we emailed them all. A lot of them didn't reply — who wants to go on record with a policy position while asking for a job-making policy, after all? — but plenty did.
We asked them to give us a yes, no, or maybe answer to whether they support SNSC's proposal and a short explanation of why.
Some followed instructions and kept their responses to 100 words or less. Others … didn't. So, the following responses have been edited for length and clarity, although we tried to keep in as much of the original as possible.
Read on and remember: Your ballot will be here any day now.
Sweeps have been a common practice for years, yet homelessness … is growing. Not to mention [sweeps are] exorbitantly expensive and ineffective. It hinders trust and social justice. Unaffordable housing is a root problem, followed by loss of employment particularly impacting BIPOC, families with children, veterans, youth, and people with disabilities. Long-term solutions must include language access, address systemic barriers, affordable housing, education, skilled trade and technical training, and intervention prior to behavioral health crisis. Immediate solutions include: emergency shelters, transitional housing, health care, rehabilitation centers, diversion programs and public safety. Let's also empower organizations serving this community and incentivize staff retention!
I definitely support this! I don't think we should *ever* be doing sweeps in any weather conditions, but certainly not in extreme weather or cold.
Immediately, we need more safe lots and more tiny homes to rapidly house people — four walls and a door you can close! — and then we need to move [to] permanent, stable, subsidized housing.
Sweeps are inhumane, ineffective, and expensive. We should be spending that money on tiny home challenges, etc. Real solutions.
No, I don't support clearing encampments during severe weather. Further, I will be a proponent of offering a more dynamic suite of housing options that are clinically appropriate for those needing more than just "permanent supportive housing."
Councilmember Tammy Morales isn't able to make a commitment at this time but has been on the record objecting to sweeps, and has been out in extreme heat to witness their negative impacts.
I absolutely support this effort. It's clear that past policies not only don't resolve the issues but actually make things worse. I like to fix problems rather than pushing them away and on to someone else.
Our campaign and movement has endorsed Stop the Sweeps and think the egregious attempts to sweep our unhoused neighbors again and again is grotesque and unethical. These are human beings with rights. Our platform calls for a right-to-shelter as a solution to the Houseless refugee crisis we are seeing across our city. We would ask for people who want to see ethical policy reform to check the power of the Mayor's Office to come door knock with our campaign and send us Democracy Vouchers via vote4ry.com as soon as they can to make sure we can change this inhumane behavior.
I do not support sweeps. Having been unhoused at one point in my life, I understand the violence that comes with this practice. Sweeps are a public health crisis that takes away people's homes and property. The unhoused population is subject to losing their prized possessions, medications, and documents. You lose your sense of decency and humanity. This type of violence has no place in our society. These people deserve compassion, not admonishment. The unhoused community needs to be treated like the people they are and we need to work with them to get them back on their feet.
Candidate Cooley does support the ban. Moreover, we have put forward a policy proposal regarding the issue — our "Million Square Feet" policy that will create a home for everyone in the city who doesn't have one. Through working with the Mayor, our city council, non-profits, regional governments, developers, and our business community, we will solve the issue of homelessness once and for all.
There are a few inherent assumptions in this statement. Firstly, the unhoused community is safe from the possibility of water flooding, freezing or subfreezing cold, fire (from cooking or lighting fire to keep warm) and carbon monoxide poisoning (from using space heaters in an enclosed space). Secondly, they have access to basic human services — safe drinking water, public restroom facilities, and hygienic conditions around their premise (regular trash pickup). Thirdly, EMT and Fire department have ease of access to come in and aid an individual who might need help.
As long as the above assumptions can be realized with the help of a generous community sharing safe cooking place, warm blankets, fire extinguishers, non-slip shoes, warm clothes, and access to basic public facilities, then I support (YES) on banning sweeps during winter and Extreme Weather events.
In the interest of public safety … I support an unsanctioned public camping ban within Seattle city limits. …
Local governments also have a responsibility to provide a sanctioned and controlled place for unhoused individuals to go … as well as a well-defined pipeline for rehabilitation and recovery. …
[O]ur region needs a strong and coordinated outreach response that is data driven, and the present "whack-a-mole" approach to outreach and encampments is clearly untenable. We need a firm and balanced, regional response that brings all parties to and keeps all options on the table. Banning "sweeps" is not the answer.
As a former President of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, I oversaw direct service programs dedicated to homelessness and transitional housing, so I have a comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved. We are a compassionate city, but it's not compassionate to allow our displaced neighbors to live unhoused, in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, in public parks, sidewalks, or campers for extended periods of time. While I'm not a fan of sweeps, especially during winter and periods of extreme weather, those aren't acceptable long-term solutions either. Folks want to be housed, so let's do all that we can to help!
Not only do I regularly organize alongside the authors of this call to action around a Winter Sweep Ban, I am running on a platform to end sweeps in Seattle altogether. Anyone who supports sweeps is doing so in defiance of the overwhelming evidence that shows very clearly how deadly, disruptive, and wasteful they are. Whether I'm elected or not, I will continue dedicating my time, resources, and voice towards demanding an end to these deadly raids.
I support this measure, and believe that we should always push to ban sweeps.
Yeah I support it. Sweeps are worse than useless in any case, it wastes money just shuffling folks around. Anything that makes the city waste less money = good.
There is no reason to sweep the most vulnerable among us during extreme weather conditions. What is important is offering shelter when needed for their safety during heat waves and severe weather conditions.
I do not support sweeps except for legitimate safety reasons or if the mobility of disabled residents is restricted. Otherwise, it just disperses people and causes more harm than good. Residents often lose identity documents and case workers lose track of their clients. The city should provide garbage services and hygiene stations if there is no adequate non-congregate housing available.
I have never really been in support of camp sweeps given that they do not seem effective and often just relocate people. … I feel that the City of Seattle including the Council and various departments need to have these solutions up and running prior to the winter months and cold weather as well as the hotter months when there is not enough access to shelter that is well ventilated, shaded, and at least has water. …
I guess to sum this up — I will always put human lives and safety over politics and popularity. So no I would never support camp sweeps when there is no adequate shelter in any type of extreme weather emergency.
I would note that my understanding is that removals are already largely suspended during extreme weather events. … On a broader prohibition during winter months I would need to learn more, and again I commit to meeting. If any such policy were to be considered there would have to be exceptions for encampment locations obstructing public right-of-way and those encampments shown to have significant public safety challenges.
I do not support this. Build the missing shelter capacity, scale up the lackluster opioid treatment system, and fix the zoning and build more housing or it never ends.
The South Seattle Emerald is committed to holding space for a variety of viewpoints within our community, with the understanding that differing perspectives do not negate mutual respect amongst community members.
The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the contributors on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of the Emerald or official policies of the Emerald.
Tobias Coughlin-Bogue is a journalist based in Seattle. His work has appeared in Vice, The Stranger, Crosscut, and Thrasher Magazine, among other outlets. He was most recently the associate editor of Real Change News.
Featured Image: Sean Struble tries to warm his hands while sitting outside a friend's tent on Marion Street in downtown Seattle, February 2019. (Photo: Jon Williams)
Before you move on to the next story …
The South Seattle Emerald™ is brought to you by Rainmakers. Rainmakers give recurring gifts at any amount. With around 1,000 Rainmakers, the Emerald™ is truly community-driven local media. Help us keep BIPOC-led media free and accessible.
If just half of our readers signed up to give $6 a month, we wouldn't have to fundraise for the rest of the year. Small amounts make a difference.
We cannot do this work without you. Become a Rainmaker today!
Before you move on to the next story …
The South Seattle Emerald™ is brought to you by Rainmakers. Rainmakers give recurring gifts at any amount. With around 1,000 Rainmakers, the Emerald™ is truly community-driven local media. Help us keep BIPOC-led media free and accessible.
If just half of our readers signed up to give $6 a month, we wouldn’t have to fundraise for the rest of the year. Small amounts make a difference.
We cannot do this work without you. Become a Rainmaker today!