One of my neighbors here on Thackeray doesn’t have e-mail, but dropped a letter off at my house a few days ago in response to the AIA flyer she had gotten at her house. She has lived in our neighborhood for 43 years and would also like to see the AIA area extended to at least 1st NE. She made a suggestion that I think we be great if we could swing it: to get everyone together and have a meeting, sort of a live forum to discuss where everyone stands on this issue and how we might proceed. The suggestion of meeting over at Good Shepherd Center sounds great; it’s close and there’s plenty of room to spread out a beach towel to sit on or maybe the picnic shelter would be available. Maybe after work around 6:30 or so? Earlier, later? Any particular days better than others for most folks?
From some of the comments I’m reading on Wallyhood and on this blog, there seem to be a few folks who are against pushing the western border of the AIA further west to encompass the 7-11 and the 50th Street Market because that will only push the homeless alcoholics further into another neighborhood, thereby making it someone else’s problem. I’m hopeful that wouldn’t happen because the fortified alcohol wouldn’t be available anywhere nearby so I don’t see it getting pushed into Fremont and Greenlake. Aaron made an interesting suggestion:

“In a preemptive effort to solve at least some of the problem, without depending entirely on the untimely bureaucracy inherent in a request to the city, I would like to propose that we write a coherent statement and request to the problem establishments. This letter should represent what reasonable changes we can imagine which would improve the current “chronic public inebriation” problem.

I have formed somewhat of a friendly relationship with the new owners of the 50th Street Market (mostly prior to their recent opening) and would be willing to hand deliver the statement to them and discuss the matter face to face. I would also be willing to forward the letter onto whatever local or corporate entity that controls the 7-11.”

This is certainly something that might be best discussed at a meeting with everyone’s immediate input. I’m concerned that if we are asking these people to stop selling something that makes them income and we aren’t offering them anything in return as a way to recoup that lost income, that it won’t be received well. As it is, it sounds like most people I’ve talked to only buy a newspaper, soft drinks or milk at the Market. Personally, I was hoping that when the 50th Street Market was re-opening that it would have received a bit of a facelift and been reborn as something like Marketime Foods over on Fremont Avenue in Fremont. I was over there today and had an interesting conversation with one of their employees who runs the liquor section. He told me they voluntarily signed a neighborhood agreement five years ago that said they wouldn’t sell fortified alcohol. They didn’t want the customers and the behavior that would have encouraged and it has worked well for them and the neighborhood, but they also have a pretty strong customer base due to the quality products they sell. I’ve left a note for the owner to give me a call when he’s back in town next week so I can find out more.
My neighbor who left me the letter also made another good point: Find out what the needs of the “homeless” people are. Yesterday morning I was trimming the bushes on top of my retaining wall in hopes of discouraging the “piggy bank” that has cropped up there in past weeks. Someone is leaving piles of pennies there, in addition to personal belongings (another “storage locker” in my yard) a VCR and more Steel Reserve cans. As I was trimming, a trio of Native Americans were walking by and stopped to talk. I introduced myself to Reno, his wife Arlene and her aunt, Mynah. Turns out they’ve been contributing to the pile in case someone needs money for purchasing beer at the 7-11. I asked them not to do that anymore because I didn’t want to be the 50th Street ATM/Steel Reserve dumping ground. They seemed cool with that (although there were more up there today) and we went on to talk about their lives. They said they live down near 50th and the freeway (Ju is pretty sure they, among others, are camping in the grassy portion of the onramp at 50th and I-5) and that they just like to drink but that they don’t do IV drugs (“Those people are more on 45th”) and they don’t toss their beer cans around, in fact, they clean up after others so people won’t get mad at them. So one of their needs is obviously a place to live. What about getting sober? Is that a “need”? I personally don’t think it’s my business to tell someone to stop drinking; I just don’t want the “collateral damage” of that personal choice to affect me the way it has been. Any other ideas on what their needs could be? And how they might be addressed? I’ve done some work with people at Daybreak Star so I will see if there are any outreach programs “our” people could access. As far as the white dudes go (like the bleeding, blasted guy from last weekend), some of them seem older and might be veterans, so maybe there are some avenues there. I hate to sound like a Pollyanna, but it would be great if this could be a win-win-win situation somehow. Anyway, please ponder the idea of a community meeting over at Good Shepherd and let’s see if we can make it happen while the weather is still nice and it would still be light outside. Thanks, Lisa

Now that you’ve set up and knocked down a strawman effectively, I’ll reiterate my point. Using the AIA *is* the ‘magic wand’ solution for individual neighborhoods. Whether or not I personally get to witness drunken acts (and with the number of UW students living in Wallingford that isn’t too difficult) has very little to do with why people want to continue to waste their tax dollars on bad policy. Enabling (admittedly, well-meaning) city bureaucrats is as bad as enabling the drunks since the latter largely remain unaffected by the former.

Getting the boundary changed would be a major deal, with a 6-mo or longer testing period to see if local retailers would do it voluntarily. Retailers who are now picking up business could be pressured to do the right thing, and be rewarded with a big plug on Wallyhood, etc.. One other suggestion would be updating the list of banned products (http://www.seattle.gov/BAN/public_safety_AIA.htm). You can find that Joose crap all over the place in the U District and Pioneer Square.

The fact that the drunks moved here proves that a handy source of cheap, fortified liquor is all they need to set up shop and hence banning said substance will immediately improve the situation. Will the problems of homelessness and chronic inebriation be resolved? No. Good luck with that one.

If the city actually offered something to go with the AIA, I’d be all for it. Instead they keep shoving the problem around the city & pretending we won’t notice how inept the AIA is to do anyone any good. The summary linked above even admits that the number of alcohol offenses have actually *increased* in some of the designated areas. Banning fortified liquor doesn’t do a damn thing to make our neighborhood, or city, better.

I will be adding my voice, but to oppose the extension of the AIA to anywhere else in the city. It’s a joke & it’s past time we asked the city to spend their limited resources on better services instead of trying to partake of bad policy.