This is very well written. Unfortunately nuance and pragmatism are not a part of Port Angeles City Council’s skill set. I am going to add this to my calendar to re read one year from today. I suspect the problems will get worse - especially those service resistant that refuse to respect any rules.
I appreciate this article and your time on the matter. This is well done with very valid concerns and I believe viable answers. Thank you for your time.
I’ve read this, and I appreciate the time that went into laying it out. At a high level, I agree with the intent and overall direction of what’s being described as a practical path forward. The way it connects enforcement, public safety, environmental impacts, treatment, outreach, and behavioral health reflects how I understand the issue as well.
Where I land is that agreement with the framework doesn’t automatically translate into agreement with implementation. My support for specific pieces would depend on seeing the actual details, especially how accountability is built in and how enforcement, staffing, and coordination are structured in practice.
Overall, I’m aligned with the intent and general structure being described here. I've asked our City Clerk to share the article with Council.
Thank you for submitting this very well written article and for the many hours of thought you have obviously given this situation. You have provided an excellent starting point for a real conversation and search for solutions that goes beyond the "one and done" approach that leads to nowhere. It is easy to point fingers and place blame, and essentially kick the can down the road while the situation only grows more alarming by the day and harms everyone involved. You've also openned the door to respectful consideration of percieved "sides" in this community. Unfortunately we humans are prone to trying to simplify complicated issues rather than think deeper and thus, here we are. I have long thought that there are layers of reasons folks end up homeless and layers of barriers to climbing out of that hole once one is in it. Drug addiction and mental health issues are the more difficult issues to address. But serving veterans, the elderly and working people in low wage jobs might be an easier place to start thus reducing the numbers of homeless, clearing the way for more effective interventions with the more complex cases. I find it most valuable that you addressed the frustration so many of us are feeling. It is so much harder to think critically when one is emersed in feeling. Name calling and dissmissiveness will get us nowhere. Thanks again.
I hear your concern about keeping the area clean, and I agree that cleanliness and safety matter for everyone. But taking people’s belongings is not a solution, it’s a reaction to a problem that the community currently has no tools to solve.
Right now, the Tumwater encampment has no access to basic sanitation. The nearest disposal site is a long walk away, and without a nearby dumpster or restroom, it’s unrealistic to expect the area to stay clean. No neighborhood, housed or unhoused, could maintain cleanliness under those conditions.
When groups like 4PA go in and remove not just trash but people’s personal property, it doesn’t fix the issue. It creates trauma, distrust, and instability, and the underlying problem remains: people are being held responsible for a situation they have no means to manage.
There is a far more effective and humane approach.
If we provide a dumpster close to the encampment, residents can dispose of trash regularly and keep the area clean. If we provide a port‑a‑potty, we reduce environmental impact, improve public health, and give people the basic dignity every human being deserves. These are simple, practical tools that empower people to maintain their space rather than punishing them for lacking resources.
Supporting these solutions doesn’t mean ignoring concerns — it means addressing them in a way that actually works. Cleanliness comes from access to sanitation, not from confiscating people’s belongings.
There are approaches that address the public health aspects instead of repeating actions that only create more harm.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree, it's a complicated issue, and anyone peddling a single solution is either ignorant or pushing an agenda.
I will challenge one of your points, however, in regards to 4PA. I've spent much time with Joe, and seen their crews in action. I have yet to see any solid evidence of them taking anyone's personal belongings. They make great efforts to check with the people before cleaning. This is very different from how some cities "sweep" an encampment.
If there were hard evidence that this is happening, I think it should be brought forward, but sharing unsubstantiated accusations can do real harm.
From what I've observed, many of the unhoused actually appreciate Joe and his team and have a good relationship with them, which is more indication that they are behaving respectfully and morally toward these people.
I would also push back that many of the people living in places like Tumwater have chosen to live there and not pursue services at places like Serenity House. Often this is due to Serenity House not permitting drug use. So when a population chooses to not accept help so they can fuel addiction and then also destroys sensitive areas, I struggle with the argument that they should be provided with amenities to continue living in a place and lifestyle that is so detrimental to our community.
To be clear, I'm not saying that these people are terrible or unredeemable. I believe addiction is at least partly a disease that some are more prone toward. I believe many have lived very hard and painful lives. And I am not saying that they don't deserve compassion. But compassion that enables them to continue in this painful existence, at detriment to themselves and the community, can quickly stop being compassion, and start being supportive of this destructive lifestyle.
I understand your thoughts, and a part of me agrees, but I still feel like it's lacking the balance that our community needs.
Nonetheless, thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I appreciate that you care enough to speak up, and we need everyone who cares to have these hard conversations and debates, and to be heard across the divide. I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers. But I do believe these conversations are key.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful tone you’re bringing to this conversation. I agree with you on one key point: this is a complex issue, and none of us should pretend there’s a single, simple solution.
That said, I want to clarify a few things, because some of the assumptions here don’t fully reflect what’s happening on the ground.
First, regarding 4PA: I’m glad your experiences with Joe and his team have been positive. But it’s also true that multiple people living in the encampment have reported their belongings being taken or thrown away. In addition to clothing and personal items, several people have specifically mentioned tools and other work‑related belongings going missing during cleanups. These aren’t vague rumors. They are firsthand accounts from a marginalized group that already has very little power or protection.
It’s unrealistic to expect that unhoused individuals would file police reports. Many avoid law enforcement due to past trauma, outstanding warrants, or fear of losing what little stability they have. So the absence of formal reports shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that nothing happened. Their experiences deserve to be taken seriously.
This isn’t about vilifying anyone. It’s about acknowledging that good intentions don’t always prevent harm, and that people who are unhoused often feel they cannot safely speak up when their property is removed. That imbalance of power is real, and it’s part of why community oversight is important.
Second, on the idea that people “choose” to live in places like Tumwater: the reality is more complicated. Many people avoid Serenity House not because they want to “fuel addiction,” but because the shelter environment can feel unsafe, restrictive, or incompatible with trauma histories, disabilities, pets, or relationships. Even people who struggle with substance use still deserve basic sanitation and a clean environment. Providing a dumpster or a port‑a‑potty isn’t “enabling a destructive lifestyle”. It reduces environmental impact, preventing disease, and treats people with dignity while longer term solutions are pursued.
Compassion doesn’t mean looking away from harm. But it also doesn’t mean withholding basic sanitation until someone meets conditions they may not be able to meet. We can hold both truths at once: that addiction is destructive, and that people living with it still deserve not to have their belongings taken or their living area treated as disposable.
Finally, I agree with you that balance is important. But balance doesn’t mean splitting the difference between two narratives. It means grounding our decisions in what works. Communities that provide trash services and toilets see less waste, less environmental damage, and better relationships between housed and unhoused residents. These are practical, not ideological, solutions.
I appreciate the conversation, and I’m glad we both care enough about our community to stay engaged. We may not see every detail the same way, but we share the goal of reducing harm and improving conditions for everyone. Housed and unhoused alike
This is very well written. Unfortunately nuance and pragmatism are not a part of Port Angeles City Council’s skill set. I am going to add this to my calendar to re read one year from today. I suspect the problems will get worse - especially those service resistant that refuse to respect any rules.
I appreciate this article and your time on the matter. This is well done with very valid concerns and I believe viable answers. Thank you for your time.
Great article for so many reasons.
Very well thought out. I hope someone in local government reads this-
I’ve read this, and I appreciate the time that went into laying it out. At a high level, I agree with the intent and overall direction of what’s being described as a practical path forward. The way it connects enforcement, public safety, environmental impacts, treatment, outreach, and behavioral health reflects how I understand the issue as well.
Where I land is that agreement with the framework doesn’t automatically translate into agreement with implementation. My support for specific pieces would depend on seeing the actual details, especially how accountability is built in and how enforcement, staffing, and coordination are structured in practice.
Overall, I’m aligned with the intent and general structure being described here. I've asked our City Clerk to share the article with Council.
Thank you for submitting this very well written article and for the many hours of thought you have obviously given this situation. You have provided an excellent starting point for a real conversation and search for solutions that goes beyond the "one and done" approach that leads to nowhere. It is easy to point fingers and place blame, and essentially kick the can down the road while the situation only grows more alarming by the day and harms everyone involved. You've also openned the door to respectful consideration of percieved "sides" in this community. Unfortunately we humans are prone to trying to simplify complicated issues rather than think deeper and thus, here we are. I have long thought that there are layers of reasons folks end up homeless and layers of barriers to climbing out of that hole once one is in it. Drug addiction and mental health issues are the more difficult issues to address. But serving veterans, the elderly and working people in low wage jobs might be an easier place to start thus reducing the numbers of homeless, clearing the way for more effective interventions with the more complex cases. I find it most valuable that you addressed the frustration so many of us are feeling. It is so much harder to think critically when one is emersed in feeling. Name calling and dissmissiveness will get us nowhere. Thanks again.
I hear your concern about keeping the area clean, and I agree that cleanliness and safety matter for everyone. But taking people’s belongings is not a solution, it’s a reaction to a problem that the community currently has no tools to solve.
Right now, the Tumwater encampment has no access to basic sanitation. The nearest disposal site is a long walk away, and without a nearby dumpster or restroom, it’s unrealistic to expect the area to stay clean. No neighborhood, housed or unhoused, could maintain cleanliness under those conditions.
When groups like 4PA go in and remove not just trash but people’s personal property, it doesn’t fix the issue. It creates trauma, distrust, and instability, and the underlying problem remains: people are being held responsible for a situation they have no means to manage.
There is a far more effective and humane approach.
If we provide a dumpster close to the encampment, residents can dispose of trash regularly and keep the area clean. If we provide a port‑a‑potty, we reduce environmental impact, improve public health, and give people the basic dignity every human being deserves. These are simple, practical tools that empower people to maintain their space rather than punishing them for lacking resources.
Supporting these solutions doesn’t mean ignoring concerns — it means addressing them in a way that actually works. Cleanliness comes from access to sanitation, not from confiscating people’s belongings.
There are approaches that address the public health aspects instead of repeating actions that only create more harm.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree, it's a complicated issue, and anyone peddling a single solution is either ignorant or pushing an agenda.
I will challenge one of your points, however, in regards to 4PA. I've spent much time with Joe, and seen their crews in action. I have yet to see any solid evidence of them taking anyone's personal belongings. They make great efforts to check with the people before cleaning. This is very different from how some cities "sweep" an encampment.
If there were hard evidence that this is happening, I think it should be brought forward, but sharing unsubstantiated accusations can do real harm.
From what I've observed, many of the unhoused actually appreciate Joe and his team and have a good relationship with them, which is more indication that they are behaving respectfully and morally toward these people.
I would also push back that many of the people living in places like Tumwater have chosen to live there and not pursue services at places like Serenity House. Often this is due to Serenity House not permitting drug use. So when a population chooses to not accept help so they can fuel addiction and then also destroys sensitive areas, I struggle with the argument that they should be provided with amenities to continue living in a place and lifestyle that is so detrimental to our community.
To be clear, I'm not saying that these people are terrible or unredeemable. I believe addiction is at least partly a disease that some are more prone toward. I believe many have lived very hard and painful lives. And I am not saying that they don't deserve compassion. But compassion that enables them to continue in this painful existence, at detriment to themselves and the community, can quickly stop being compassion, and start being supportive of this destructive lifestyle.
I understand your thoughts, and a part of me agrees, but I still feel like it's lacking the balance that our community needs.
Nonetheless, thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I appreciate that you care enough to speak up, and we need everyone who cares to have these hard conversations and debates, and to be heard across the divide. I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers. But I do believe these conversations are key.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful tone you’re bringing to this conversation. I agree with you on one key point: this is a complex issue, and none of us should pretend there’s a single, simple solution.
That said, I want to clarify a few things, because some of the assumptions here don’t fully reflect what’s happening on the ground.
First, regarding 4PA: I’m glad your experiences with Joe and his team have been positive. But it’s also true that multiple people living in the encampment have reported their belongings being taken or thrown away. In addition to clothing and personal items, several people have specifically mentioned tools and other work‑related belongings going missing during cleanups. These aren’t vague rumors. They are firsthand accounts from a marginalized group that already has very little power or protection.
It’s unrealistic to expect that unhoused individuals would file police reports. Many avoid law enforcement due to past trauma, outstanding warrants, or fear of losing what little stability they have. So the absence of formal reports shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that nothing happened. Their experiences deserve to be taken seriously.
This isn’t about vilifying anyone. It’s about acknowledging that good intentions don’t always prevent harm, and that people who are unhoused often feel they cannot safely speak up when their property is removed. That imbalance of power is real, and it’s part of why community oversight is important.
Second, on the idea that people “choose” to live in places like Tumwater: the reality is more complicated. Many people avoid Serenity House not because they want to “fuel addiction,” but because the shelter environment can feel unsafe, restrictive, or incompatible with trauma histories, disabilities, pets, or relationships. Even people who struggle with substance use still deserve basic sanitation and a clean environment. Providing a dumpster or a port‑a‑potty isn’t “enabling a destructive lifestyle”. It reduces environmental impact, preventing disease, and treats people with dignity while longer term solutions are pursued.
Compassion doesn’t mean looking away from harm. But it also doesn’t mean withholding basic sanitation until someone meets conditions they may not be able to meet. We can hold both truths at once: that addiction is destructive, and that people living with it still deserve not to have their belongings taken or their living area treated as disposable.
Finally, I agree with you that balance is important. But balance doesn’t mean splitting the difference between two narratives. It means grounding our decisions in what works. Communities that provide trash services and toilets see less waste, less environmental damage, and better relationships between housed and unhoused residents. These are practical, not ideological, solutions.
I appreciate the conversation, and I’m glad we both care enough about our community to stay engaged. We may not see every detail the same way, but we share the goal of reducing harm and improving conditions for everyone. Housed and unhoused alike