Sunday, October 26, 2008

Nickelsville Talks Back To Mayor Greg Nickels



Astonishingly, Mayor Greg Nickels went to the Seattle Channel's Ask The Mayor to say that the people staying at Nickelsville aren't even homeless. They're mostly "advocates," he said, who have homes of their own. The incredulous expression on C.R. Douglas' face is worth the price of admission alone. Revel and I went to Nickelsville the next day in search of the fake homeless.

5 comments:

once a doe always a doe said...

seems to be OK for the mayor-maynot to do as he pleases and say anything he wants and not a single council member or member of the public stands up and answers his flagrant lies. what gives seattle? even the claim that 94% of the shelter beds are in seattle,... hey mayor dude: the region's sales tax spent in your city gives you the $$$ to do this and more. get a clue!

Bruce from Accordion Noir said...

That guy at 4:25 just lays it out!

"I am homeless because of the trucking situation, because of the fuel situation, because I'm competing with every ex-fisherman for fishermen's jobs that they didn't want before the fuel prices went up.

"Do you think I actually want to sleep with the idea of getting arrested or pulled over by a man saying I'm causing the city trouble? You can't loiter downtown, you'll get arrested. You can't walk around anywhere, you can't be anywhere, and the shelters are full-up. I've sat the Josephinium (?) with fifty people one night for one bed.

"You see, I'm not out here to be a pain in the Mayor, but the Mayor's decisions are a pain for me. Half the people here can't even get an identification. It takes an act of congress if you lose your ID, just so they can play with statistics. Because if they give you an ID and you don't have a job, now you're a counted statistic that is unemployed. So they make it almost impossible to get a simple identification card."

Maybe the Mayor can claim he's promoting jobs by training homeless folks to be their own advocates?

Dr. Wes Browning said...

If Greg Nickels had the balls to talk to these people like you did he'd find out how wrong he is and turn around. Great video.

doe to the core said...

A citizens’ Citation
is hereby issued Against
The city of seattle
Dated November 1, 2008
For its violation of federal law, to wit:

106th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2869
________________________________________
AN ACT
To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000'.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.
(a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS-
(1) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This subsection applies in any case in which--
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.

Application of this federal law,
as it has been used by courts
in king county WA, means:

1. The city of seattle cannot deny any congregation the right to exercize its mission on any of its property in assisting the homeless;

2. The city of seattle may seek to permit the use in which a congregation engages when outdoors, since no permits are required for indoor shelters within seattle;


3. The city must show a compelling governmental interest in any land use regulation involving religious uses, and must use the least restrictive means to further that demonstrated interest, by law, and;

4. Given recent and consistent precedent in court decisions involving congregations and municipalities within king county, the city of seattle exceeds the least restrictive means of land use guidelines established in king county when the city


A)Threatens the church with fines
B)Demands the camp dissolve
C) Combines A) and B) with the clear Refusal to legally permit the Federally protected religious use

kathy j said...

nice work tim and revel