A lot of good (and disturbing) information here.

But please take another look at the caption under the photograph:

“Homeless Man- Almost Indistinguishable From Trash”

I’m sure the author did not mean it, but English is tricky, and one simple reading of that caption is that the homeless person is trash.

Good points rasied. I am bit baffled by the caption “importing problems”. This does, however, underscore that this is not a single jurisdiction issues, but  a national issue, requiring national level reponse / solutions. Just isolating it to be Bellingham problem is also not true. This is Whatcom County issue or Washington State issue for resouces and solutions.  Something which took half a century to precipitate upon us, becasue of our economic and social policies (national level and state level), it will take some time to implement the solutions, that is only if we collectivey want to solve this or just show empathy and sympathy from time to time. There is no magic bullet to solve homelessness and mental health services  in a year or two.  Even if we have all the money in the world to throw at these problems, it will take more than a decade or two.

Abe,

Thank you for your reply and suggestion to clarify the foto caption. I agree the caption was regrettably ambiguous: it was intended to distinquish, not equate the sleeping bag from the surrounding trash and demonstate the tragedy to unsheltered homeless people and our community of the homelessness epidemic.

Satpal,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps “inheriting problems” would be the better reference for  Bellingham having become a destination for unhoused people from distant jurisdictions and states. This inmigration is a complex phenomenon to describe succinctly.

Certainly, the homeless problem here is county wide. But, Bellingham’s city center hosts the only full-time shelter and nearly all related social services for Whatcom County. If we continue with 20th century responses to 21st century homelessness, as is the proposed Base Camp expansion in Bellingham’s core, we will recreate 20th century inner city tragedies in Bellingham’s core neighborhoods - crime, blight, loss of businesses, and socioeconomically segregated neighborhoods that disadvantage the poor in every measure of public health from basic safety to education.

The guiding purpose of my article is to provide basic information needed to reframe solutions and not sacrifice Bellingham’s core neighborhoods. Scores of businesses have left Bellingham’s downtown in recent years owing to the public health and safety problems there. This scorge is now establishing itself in core neighborhoods, and the lower income neighborhoods are disproportinately affected.

If Bellingham/Whatcom County continue to implement 20th century measures that sacrifice city centers to failed homelessness and related services - as are Base Camp and the Drop-in Center before it - Bellingham will cease to be a liveable city, from the inside out and in less than the “decade or two” you suggest we allow.

For clarification, the photo caption mentioned by Abe Jacobson was not created or placed there by the author of the article.  The caption has been removed.

Has the Mission been asked if they confirm that they have been advertising their services as far away as San Diego (as the article anecdotally noted)?

If they have or are doing so, that seems quite problematic on a number of levels.

 1 - This would seem to gin up the local “demand” which otherwise would not exist at the resulting level.

 . . a - The increased demand would then reduce per capita available services for local homeless aggravating their personal situations (less food, less housing, less other resources for them).

 . . b - Especially for homeless women and children, one of their greatest personal threats are homeless men (obviously not all but a fraction).  That is why so many shelters exclude men (to improve security for women and children).  Successfully advertising to increase numbers, increases security threats.

 . . c - Should not San Diego (and their equivalent of the Mission) work to support their own causes and results of homelessness rather than be assisted to shoulder it off on another city?

 2 - Advertising is normally reserved for when an organization has excess resources.  Conversely, it can be used to create demand and “grow the organization” by growing demand.

 . . a - No non-profit should be in the business of growing demand.

 . . b - No government should support growing the need/demand for any non-profits.

 . . c - If the situation of homelessness is a “problem to solve”, increasing/growing the “problem” through advertising is patently counterproductive for all concerned (except maybe for the livelihood of executive staff, also for paid consultants to the City and/or the non-profit).

Thank you, Thomas, for detailing the unfortunate consequences to our city and county of a low barrier homeless shelter that solicits, and/or accepts without qualification, unhoused people from distant jurisdictions.

When drafting my article, I briefly considered contacting Lighthouse Mission administration to confirm the report of them advertising on public busses in California; but I had good cause to expect they would not be forthcoming about this. I had attended the 3-hour May 26 “Neighborhood Meeting” (that didn’t invite Lettered Streets neighborhood - video linked above), and I viewed the entire recorded meeting another three times to confirm my understanding of claims made by Lighthouse Mission and COB. Clearly, many of the Mission’s public claims misrepresented or omitted facts.

In short, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the anecdotal report about Lighthouse Mission advertising on a California bus; and I have every reason to doubt the accuracy of information provided by Lighthouse Mission administration.

I am confident of the accuracy of information provided by Mission resident staff cited in paragraph 6 of my article: that “guests” enroute here from as distant as Georgia and Texas are welcomed by Lighthouse Mission. This statement is consistent with the Whatcom County annual homelessness report, anecdotal reports by first responders, and the homeless themselves.

Consider also that Lighthouse Mission Ministries is a member of Citygate Network based in Colorado Springs, CO, “comprised of approximately 300 missions and kindred ministries located throughout North America” that help “you…to find missions or ministries that offer specific services”. The Citygate Network members roster and search engines where Lighthouse Mission Ministries is listed are here: https://www.citygatenetwork.org/agrm/Locate_a_Mission.asp.

Thank you, Karen, for your focused article and your October 6 & 7 comments. In May I watched that Lighthouse Mission meeting. I too thought the several citizens were very polite in their comments. I have also watched meetings where counts of people arriving from out of town are discussed. I have also met people on my walks who have taken the bus to get here. Taxi cabs even drop them on Glass Beach to sleep. I agree with Thomas R. Scott’s comment. 

I have advocated fairly fruitlessly since at least 2017 for appropriate oversight and conservation of the natural area near Wharf Street. Attention from responsible parties does not readily materialize. Most of my inquiries, if replied to at all, are met with “homelessness is a national issue” or other off-point truisms. For another example, there is a repeatedly employed response that several other sites take priority, including Whatcom Creek and Cornwall Avenue. It can be assumed the various staffers don’t keep a tally of or care how many times an excuse has been used for the same request. Moreover there is a lack of adequate care given to both those vicinities so it is ironic that they use such excuses. The last time I walked around this Whatcom Creek segment (9/29), there were still occupants and trash along the riparian corridor from behind City Hall to near the Senior Center towards Cornwall Avenue. So I guess the length of time this salmon stream has been so egregiously impacted has been 10 months or more? As for Cornwall Avenue, there is a complaint just posted today (by someone other than me) at SeeClickFix exemplifying the continued problem. An employee at the factory there told me in June that complaints by the company go unheeded. 

There are road and driver problems nationwide that perhaps developed over years and need to be resolved one at a time in order of priority, but responsible jurisdictions don’t typically tell their bosses or their communities such context means they can’t repair broken traffic lights, write tickets for speeding, ensure adherence to stormwater and garbage regulations, suspend licenses and so forth. 

I wrote City Hall August 3rd this year about the portion of Whatcom Creek between City Hall and Cornwall Ave and when there was no response wrote County Executive Satpal Sidhu August 19th. Sadly I did not receive a reply to that email either.  https://tinyurl.com/August-emails

Thank you, Liz, for your observations about the 5/26 meeting and chronic lack of responsiveness to pressing citizen concerns by City Hall.

Indeed, the 5/26 “Neighborhood Meeting” was “polite”; Lettered Streets neighborhood was neither invited nor present. Only Lettered Streets property owners within 500 feet of the Mission were informed about that meeting. Responsibility for that gross neglect falls to the ostensible Lettered Streets Neighborhood Association and COB.

I feel your pain about the tragic destruction by homeless encampments along our creek beds, shorelines, and greenways. Tefloned characterizes the responses to this ongoing destruction by COB and Bellingham residents not directly impacted by it. They are all whistling past the graveyard, telling themselves a monsterous new Lighthouse Mission will solve Bellingham’s homeless problem. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Satpal,

I am in agreement with your comment about national level response and in disagreement with with Liz about “off-point truisms”.   Although we must not neglect the homeless locally and do what we can in that regard, the recognition that this intractable, nationwide crisis must be met with a national level response akin to a wartime response is absolutely correct.  If we are not seeking that level of response, then we are fooling ourselves and those who most need assistance, the homeless. 

I agree with Satpal and Dick that it is true that the ongoing national crisis requires national action which is why I referred to this as a truism. Federal actions are taking place. Homelessness is all citizens’ problem. I do not hold that nationwide nonprofits, government agencies and citizen activists are lax or absent from addressing it. The three-day 37th annual Conference on Ending Homelessness (in Washington state—-more info here) just wrapped up. I believe it is in its 37th year; this reflects significant motivation in lots of people’s minds and hearts for a very long time. There is implementation of many huge financial investments across the USA on the part of private investors, nonprofits, Washington state, and the US government. (BTW there was a national conference on ending homeless held in September.) There are strong efforts locally and across the nation to protect air, land and water too. That has been my point. There are many local, state and federal health and ecological regulations to uphold simultaneously such as those pertaining to salmon recovery, litter, clean water, and sanitation to name a few. 

I agree with Liz and Dick!  The national crisis of homelessness is a truism that begs for national level solutions. Also true is that liberal coastal cities are inordinately impacted by the numbers of displaced unhoused people nationwide. Add this wake-up call: we can’t locally build our way out of the homeless crisis within liberal coastal cities.

From a lifelong homeless advocate, Pastor Andy Bales, Director of Union Rescue Mission in Skid Row, LA for 20+ years, here is the single most informative interview I’ve found about the fundamental failure of America’s response to now epidemic homelessness:

“Why Housing the Homeless is Failing in California” - Andy Bales, July 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-pYilk8GgE&t=28s

I find it quite interesting that local homeless advocates have been entirely silent on this article.  This is remarkable, because generally they meet ANY criticism of the homeless population with ferocious objections which usually take the form of calling people hateful, inhumane, uncaring, etc., sometimes accompanied by profanity and name-calling.   The premise of this article, that increasing the number of homeless by importing them from outside Whatcom County would cause crime, blight and closure of businesses, and that “assaults and property crimes substantially increase in adjacent neighborhoods wherever the low-barrier shelter is located,” should have produced screams of outrage from these activists.  Why didn’t it?  Because they DETEST the Lighthouse Mission and constantly claim that the homeless will not seek shelter there, in spite of the fact that the homeless do so in large numbers.  The one opinion they seem to share with the Mission is that “only” 30% of the homeless are from outside the county.

The last thing I would want to advocate would be to attract more homeless people from outside the community.  However, I am not convinced that the Mission expansion will do this in large numbers.  I am not convinced that it WON’T, either, so I am not making that claim. But here are some points which stand out to me.  First off all, Karen mentions that the expansion would produce “a 500+ increase in service capacity.”  Does this mean shelter beds for 500+ more homeless people, or an increase in the mission’s ability to provide services to the homeless?  These are two different things. The mission TRIES to help and rehabilitate the homeless when they can.  They offer shelter and services to homeless people who are trying to get back on their feet, and try to rehabilitate those who are addicts and criminals, or mentally ill.  Many people seem to think that mental illness is untreatable, and do not to realize that the mentally ill living on the street rarely seek services.  If they can be persuaded to do so, there are medications which can greatly help many of the mentally ill homeless population.  I feel that this is a significant reason why mission personnel claim that people will not move just for a shelter bed.  People entering the mission as well as Base Camp are expected to follow rules, such as not using alcohol or drugs inside the shelter, cooperating with shelter staff, not fighting or otherwise disrupting shelter operations, etc., etc.  In this sense, even Base Camp is not a “low-barrier shelter” because there are rules and it is not a free zone for any type of behavior.  This weeds out a lot of the most destructive people, and therefore I do believe that addicts, criminals, the habitually violent, etc., do not want to live under these conditions.  I believe this is a major reason why some homeless reject the services of the Mission, because there is an element that will not accept any control or rules.

Also, I definitely do not think that the mission deserves criticism of its tax-free status, or that the city deserves criticism for providing them with property and infracture upgrades.  The mission is in fact a tax-free charitable organization which provides a tremendous service to us. What would be the cost to taxpayers in the City and County to provide homeless services if we did not have the Mission here?  I think the cost would be beyond any amount we could imagine.  So if the city leases vacant land for them or provides infrastructure for them, we are still getting one hell of a good deal.  Finally, I think perhaps the most important aspect of what the mission tries to accomplish, in addition to providing the homeless with shelter and other basic services, is that they TRY to rehabilitate people (from addictions, criminal behavior, mental health problems which might be mitigated by treatment, etc.) or provide meaningful assistance to those who don’t need a form of rehabilition but need help in climbing out of homelessness. 

Finally, a shelter outside the city core is going to be far less acceptable to homeless people in general.  They need and want to be in the city center, for reasons that are both socially acceptable and socially unacceptable.  As for “the public health and safety of Bellingham’s core neighborhoods”: First of all, the city of Bellingham has tried time and again to find industrial land in the city for a low-barrier shelter, without success.  And, as I mentioned above, a low-barrier shelter operated by the city would come with an immense cost to its citizens.  The lettered-street neighborhood used to be one of the sketchiest and higher-crime neighborhoods in the city.  The increasing population of Bellingham and gentrification of the lettered street area has somewhat changed this. Of special note is that the area in which the mission operates was formerly known (and still is to some) as “Old Town.”  In addition to being an industrial area, it once housed taverns, second-hand shops, a few of the oldest buildings in town, and a historic but low-rent apartment houses that were inhabited by a lot of decent people but also a lot of sketchy people.  The mission has operated in this area for at least 50 years that I know of.  The city has plans underway to destroy the remnants of Old Town and replace it with one of their ever-popular “urban villages.”  Whatever is left of Old Town, including some historic houses, will be demolished and in its place we will have mainly high-end condos (there are already a couple of high-end butt-ugly condo buildings there).  Luxury condos with bay views, just what Bellingham needs.  I would trade high-end condos for sketchy Old Town in a minute.  Those living in the expensive new condos will just have to learn to live with the mission, and if they object to an institution which has operated there for decades, they will have a sincere, deeply-felt lack of sympathy from me. 

For those who are on NextDoor there is a very long thread on this topic.  Comments on it are now closed but the contentious exhange is there in its entirety. 

Unfortunately, we have no present day Alexander to resolve this Gordian Knot.  The large part that “charities” play in this situation of exploding homelessness and hunger nationwide is incontrovertable evidence of the  continuing and massive failure of government at all levels.  So as with the thread linked above, hominem attacks, opinion, “facts”, anger, insults, etc., abound.  So much for discourse today. 

Amanda Flemming’s comment is an opinion piece that serves to demonstrate why I wrote this article.

Rather than a premise, my article has a purpose: to provide verifiable information about the demographics of the unsheltered homeless population in Bellingham; to describe the different Lighthouse Mission Ministries that include their Base Camp low barrier emergency shelter; to summarize the Mission’s funding and plan for a 5-fold expansion in “partnership” with COB; to acknowledge the negative public health/safety impact of low barrier shelters on host neighborhoods and city cores that is well-documented statistically and anecdotally; to inform about the COB permitting process, timeline, and public input for the Lighthouse Mission Redevelopment Plan; and to offer readers additional resources for information on these topics.

Pertinent to low barrier emergency housing shelters, as IS Base Camp and the Drop-In Center before it, my conclusion from nearly two years research into the urban homelessness/addiction/mental illness crisis is that low barrier shelters should be located outside city cores and residential neighborhoods for purposes of public health/safety and survival of brick-and-mortar businesses – Everett/Snohomish County is our nearest example of the merits of such shelter location.

I refer readers to my article for verifiable information to correct or clarify misattributions in Amanda’s comment. Finally, a correction to a misquote by Amanda regarding the increase service capacity for the Mission’s planned expansion: my article states, “The Lighthouse Mission rebuild proposes 500+ service capacity – this is twice the homeless shelter capacity for Whatcom, whose population is a quarter that of Snohomish.”

Yeah, I get the message, Karen.  Your article has “a purpose” and I sullied it with my useless opinions and thoughts.  Sadly, however, that is allowed.   And I am so ignorant that I actually asked what a particular phrase meant.  Shame on me.  But thanks so much for providing, demonstrating, summarizing, acknowledging, informing and concluding.  Of course, when armed with all this verifiable information from your two years of research, there is no need for anyone’s opinions or any further discussion. 

Amanda Flemming – I’m glad to see your comments here. I’ve missed your characteristic thoughtful participation on local forums about community and neighborhood welfare. And your earlier comment serves to elaborate on the purpose for my article.

I hope you’ll agree that Bellingham needs solutions beyond inadequate 20^th century responses to rapidly accelerating numbers and intensity of needs of unhoused people, especially unsheltered unhoused people as Base Camp serves.

Civil discussion based on verifiable facts and respectful consideration for Bellingham citizens, as well as unhoused and transient people, is needed for solutions; AND a City Hall that actively solicits and includes public input, consideration for impacts on public health and commerce, and PLANNING (rather than political expedience or ideology) to effectively answer this 21^st century iteration of homelessness/addiction/mental illness.   

There is real merit to your initial comment; and there are errors and misattributions, too. Verifiable facts, accountability to sound reasoning, and civil discourse are the basis of useful discussions and inclusive problem-solving. Opinions serve to discern facts and generate creative options that then serve useful discussion. Opinions have relative merit in effective discussion, as long as they are appropriately weighted in the process.

For example, while you acknowledge the real merits of Lighthouse Mission programmed recovery/restorative programs, you don’t distinquish those services from basic low barrier shelter services provided by Base Camp that constitutes > 80% of clients served by Lighthouse Mission Ministries. This distinction about service levels provided by different Mission programs is critical for deciding where to appropriately locate an expanded Base Camp. The value of opinions is to discern facts and generate creative options that then serve civil discourse and sound solutions.

Thank you for posting your comments that serve the informed discussion needed to decide about best locating a low barrier emergency housing facility in Bellingham.

Dick Conoboy - Thanks for linking the recent Nextdoor discussion about this topic. There are several previous interations of this discussion on Nextdoor. Reading through the progress of the numerous Nextdoor discussions these recent weeks - and there is clear progress in content, tone, and balance - I’m tentatively hopeful that the basis of civil discourse about this emotionally charged topic can still be achieved.

Thank you, John, and Deb for providing the Northwest Citizen forum that serves to inform and discuss matters critical to quality of life in Bellingham.

I did state that “People entering the mission as well as Base Camp are expected to follow rules, such as not using alcohol or drugs inside the shelter . . . ” demonstrating that I do know the difference between the two.

It is not up to you to tell anyone what “the value of opinions” is or to declare the definition of “the basis of useful discussions and inclusive problem-solving.”  You have opinions on those things.  Your opinions and definitions are not facts.  Your “verifiable facts” may prove that your opinion is right, or they may not.

I posted a comment, or “opinion piece” raising some points that were important to me and a moderately different point of view.  It is MY OPINION that your reply was antagonistic and purported to “correct” my thinking and how I express it in a highly condescending manner.  You certainly are allowed to do that, just as I am allowed to express my opinion, regardless of whether it conforms with your rules and regulations for doing so.

Amanda Flemming - What you just quoted is NOT the difference between Base Camp and the Mission recovery/restorative programs. Rather, both Base Camp and Mission rehabilitation  programs share requirements for basic safe behavior and refraining from substance use while on Mission premises. The DIFFERENCE between Mission residential recovery programs and Base Camp is that Base Camp “guests” have no accountability to recovery/restorative programs. My article details these differences.

Apparently, you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the difference between an opinion and a verifiable fact. It’s a critical difference for purposes of civil discourse and problem solving, and your comments again serve to demonstrate the different outcomes for each. I’ll leave you with your opinions.