WA: Church expecting fine for its tent city (Dem's bill to bar cities from restricting churches)

Giving credit where it's due:

I found this article via Orbusmax which is linking to this blog article:

Rhetorical Ammo Help defeat Tent City legislation

Help defeat Tent City legislation

According to Saturday's Seattle Times, State Representative Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, is attempting to prevent local cities from restricting Tent City encampments:

The discord between faith organizations and cities over temporary homeless encampments prompted Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, to introduce a bill that would make it unlawful for cities to keep faith communities from hosting the encampments. The bill also states that no jurisdiction shall impose a maximum stay of fewer than 90 days.

"We've got this ongoing fight between cities and churches," Miloscia said. "It's still going on; it hasn't settled down."

Noting that 111 homeless people died on the streets of King County last year, Miloscia said churches should not be unfairly hindered in their attempts to save lives by offering shelter.

"To me, that's flat-out immoral," he said.

If you would like to (courteously, please) let Rep. Miloscia know that he should withdraw his bill, here is his contact information:

Rep. Mark Miloscia
30th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
437A Legislative Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7898
E-mail

Washington State Ping :-)

If you have to pay anything - make sure you pay them in *pennies*. Bags and bags of pennies.

I'm not sure you understand the scourge that "Tent City" is. I fully support the fines-- the churches are directly violating city laws & working with King County (yes, the King County that fraudulently elected Gov. Gregoire) in order to impose the homeless happy camp on the East Side residents so that we get a "taste" of Seattle. Happened in Woodinville too-- Woodinville taxpayers foot the bill for a church's decision to violate the law and bring these people into our community.

And that's not even getting into the unethical nature of housing the "homeless" in a roving camp called "tent city".

In a perfect world they would feed the homeless to the hungry.

In a perfect world they would feed the homeless to the hungry.

LMAO

They could also assist zoos in avoiding budget shortfalls due to the high

cost of animal food :-)

Well-stated, and let's not forget about the crime, filth and overall degradation that these tent cities bring to every community that they move into.

It's one thing to be compassionate (within reason) to those down on their luck but it's something else entirely to have any organization destroy a community and it's quality of life while attempting to shield itself from criticism by hiding behind the shield of 'compassion'.

I don't really think it is the scourge you make it out as. I don't see how a tent city on church property is a sink in the tax payer's pocket unless the city make it so...

I heard a representative from the church last week on the radio state that although they expected a fine, they are hoping that like in the past, one will not be given to them.

Just another example of a law being on the books, but not being enforced.

I heard a representative from the church last week on the radio state that although they expected a fine, they are hoping that like in the past, one will not be given to them.

Just another example of a law being on the books, but not being enforced.

hmmmm...that's troubling.

If the law doesn't apply to everyone equally, then it means nothing (or possibly that the Revolutionary War was fought for no particular reason other than for the colonists to get away from home for awhile)

If you or I happened to own a large tract of property in or near a heavily populated area, and decided that we wanted to invite the most undesirable and criminally-oriented group of people on the planet to stay on our land in tents with minimal sanitation we would be shut down and jailed in a New York minute. We could caterwaul all day long about how we are being 'compassionate' to those 'less fortunate' but at the end of the day we wouldn't have a leg to stand on because we would be destroying the quality of life for everyone else in the vicinity. It's possible that we could also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise if it could be shown that there was ongoing illegal drug, sexual or alcohol activity , regardless of our noble intentions.

For these people to wantonly destroy the community and then hide behind their church for protection is reprehensible. If they want to provide housing for 'homeless' people, fine. They can buy a dedicated tract of property far enough away from population so that any criminality won't be an issue, and then bus them to and from the employment office in the nearest town under strict guard. This would allow them to help while protecting the community, which is made up of people who have worked long and hard, sometimes for generations, to be able to buy a nice home in that particular neighborhood. These hardworking people don't deserve to have their life's efforts soiled by the unspeakable effluvia and criminality generated by the 'homeless'.

WA State Ping...JFK