For those interested in the proposal tiny home village in Spanaway, the Pierce Prairie Post has a recap of recent meetings on the topic.
“The room was packed. I don’t think I have seen a meeting in Spanaway attract so many people. The County definitely was not expecting this either, they ran out of flyers to hand out.”
Read the rest of the Pierce Prairie Post’s story here.
I would agree having a aea designed to handle homeless. Hwver three things need to happen. 1st make it late enough to handle eery homeless including famiies.2. Provide meals medical and other services on site. 3. Require anyone homeless in Piece County and proff they were living in piece County before being homeless. Require others to move away from Piee County if not originally living here. Also ban any homeless person to live in area not suited for homeless. Require them to move into the Ew facility or leave Pierce County. Anyone found living in unauthorized areas will be screened to determine of authorized to live in New location. If not they will be taken outside Pierce County. Provide work on site for occupants to maintain site. Remember enforce the no homeless person in Pierce county can live on the streets anymore. They can leae the new shelter anytime however cannot move into street living. The site will have security and anyone breaking set of rules will be moved outside Pierce county permanently.
The County sends out a postcard with a date & time for the community meeting & then they change the time from 7.00 PM to 9:00 AM in the morning on the day ! How much more corrupt can this Pierce County & there council be ? Absolutely ridiculous to plan such a project that enroaches a Military Installation and a fully residential road, on semi swamp land with no sewer, only one ER within miles of the community- no municipal police department- Spanaway relies on County Sheriff only. There is no sanitation. This is supposed to be a Cross Base Highway!!! Where is the Federal $$ for that project- the one that everyone VOTED for !!! I did not vote for this absurd proposal, nor did the rest of the community. That type of project requires municipal policing, various medical facilities, & lots of taxpayers to pay for the 30+ million it will cost to run as other States with similar plans have reported. It is shown in statistics that 50 % of the Homeless are substance addicted & 25% have extreme mental issues that’s 75% that require special attention & facilities & crime prevention !! And you want to put it there ? NO Thank You Pierce County. You are the worst urban planning department in the State !
Very well said! I was at that meeting. They tried to paint a pretty picture and none of us were having anything to do with it. They tried to take up the whole time of the meeting with the pretty slide show so we would not have a chance to talk. Thank goodness there were a lot of us there and were able to shut them down so we were able to speak. It would be nice if they would’ve aired our responses to the public.
Arlene
Please reach out to the County Council members often and express your thoughts and concerns
Why are Homeless defined as mentally ill and and addicted. No one with a criminal record should be allowed in this community. Try families only no addiction first. Maybe you’d get more support. Why are law abiding people expected to pay for supporting addiction and criminal behavior. Those folks should have a rules based system to get off drugs if they get housing support.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Great Idea; Wrong Location!!!
We all deserve better!
Tax dollars:
These are our tax dollars being spent. Why would anyone choose a site that is the most difficult and expensive to develop that also brings with it a huge risk to our environment. Certainly our tax dollars will go farther on a more suitable site!
Scoring matrix:
The scoring system used in this proposal is very arbitrary and lacks consistency. The values given to each dimension were merely a guess without basis. The matrix looks as though it was merely copied and pasted from another source?? Kitsap Transit??
To say this site has “no fatal flaws anticipated or environmental conditions w/ little to no mitigation potential, or unique obstacles” is Embarrassing!
Other potential locations:
How in the world was this site determined to be the best of the best?
With just a quick search I found many other suitable sites in Tacoma and unincorporated Pierce County. All of these sites are much more ‘buildable’ and met the same criteria that was used in the scoring matrix. Some of these were much closer to bus routes and even train stops as well as other services like shopping and medical care.
Some parcels are privately owned and others are public.
Protected wetlands:
These waterways and wetlands are protected by State and Federal environmental statutes. There are also protected species and habitat on site. Even though there may be work-arounds that technically allow this site to be used , it certainly doesn’t meet with the intent our approach to environmental protection. Have you looked at the map? This project is virtually squeezed into the property between the wetlands.
The fencing around the property will significantly disrupt the natural movement of animal species in the area, causing them to cross Spanaway Loop Road at their peril!
Sewers:
Septic systems are not acceptable for this site. The project is surrounded by wetlands. These wetlands feed directly into Spanaway Lake.
The property owners surrounding the lake and Pierce County have been working hard to improve the water quality in lake. Any additional septic tanks in the area would only make that work harder and more expensive.
Groundwater runoff must also be contained and removed, not just allowed to seep into the ground.
Permitting:
I, nor anyone else, would be able to build a bridge over a state waterway without a permit.
It appears as though the County is very confused about what will be required. There seems to have been very little research or verification put into the proposal for this site.
The County appears to assume that they will be able to just rewrite the rules along the way to force this project through.
This creates significant distrust that the greater community’s interests are being considered and protected.
Example:
Ref. Letter from AHBL, October 14, 22
“In Pierce County, wetland impacts would typically require permits from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology, and Pierce County. As part of the feasibility study, the design team has met with each of these agencies and based on those discussions our proposal to construct a bridge structure over the wetland area, will not require any permits from any of these government agencies. Our project proposes no impact to the wetlands.”
Ref. Pierce County Village Proposal, Pub. October 7, 22
The Project requires building a bridge across a wetland.
“Consequently, a Standard Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) will be required from the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Wetlands are deemed state waters and the HPA permit is required to do any construction in, over, or near the wetland. At this time a permit to build the bridge is not required from Ecology or the Army Corps.”
PTSD residents:
It is beyond reason to place PTSD patients and others with mental health issues so close to a ‘war zone’. When the military base is conducting training, which is constant day & night, there is machine gun fire, grenade blasts, and cannon fire, in some cases less than a mile away from this site, as well as helicopters and Osprey aircraft flying overhead.
This location is also directly in the flight path for McChord AFB aircraft for landing, takeoffs and routine training flights. (regardless of what you say the county was told by JBLM representatives)
I can’t imagine that this would be therapeutic for these residents.
This site:
This site is unacceptable for many reasons, just a few are listed above.
The proposal lacks clarity and does not reflect prudent or professional practices. -This site will not meet the intended goals of the project.
-This site will not be the peaceful place with all the amenities proposed.
-This site will not help the homeless; it will cause them further harm.
-This site is difficult to develop.
-This site will be harmed by the project and the wetlands and habitat will suffer. -This site does not reflect wise use of tax dollars.
-The risk/benefit assessment for this site screams for a different location.
We all deserve better!
Please take the time and select a more suitable site. It is the right thing to do for the community, the environment, and the residents of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Cooper