Talk:Tent city

=General Discussion= This blog post links to a lot of resources and embeds a bunch of recent mainstream news videos about tent cities. http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/03/tent-cities-sprouting-in-sacramento-and.html There is enough material to expand the article a little. Kevin143 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

tent city is a much more basic concept than this article describes --LegCircus 17:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * How so? What edits would you make? --Lukobe 22:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! I would like to see the page talk about Hooverviles and Reagan Ranches and the Harvard Living Wage tent city and there must be tons more history to this form of protest. Additionally I imagine there are standing tent city (shanty towns?) that do not have protest as there primary reason for being.


 * I'll wait for your ideas before moving forward. I look forward to your imput.


 * --LegCircus 22:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean--you mean you're wondering "where's the content on tent cities in general?" Good question. It's probably out there somewhere, and if it isn't, should be added. The Seattle-area information is here because "Tent City" is the actual proper name of the local encampments. If you wrote an article about tent cities in general this article could probably be moved to "Tent City (King County, Washington)" or something similar.
 * --Lukobe 23:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Additional generic uses of the "tent city" term are (1) in the military, for large groups of tents set up to house troops, supplies, etc., usually deep in a "rear area" and semipermanent in nature, with strong perimeter security; and (2) any temporary encampment, either impromptu or planned, to accomodate numbers people in a political protest, for instance. If I could write it better, I'd just edit that into the article.
 * Personally, I'd rather see the general info at tent city, or something like temporary housing communities, as an article that did the subject justice over a sufficient time-span, world-wide, would really overwhelm this one. I do agree the general topic is very worthy of an article. Ah, it looks like we have a decent start at Shanty town, which may be a good enuf title, just needing some redirs and links to it etc. Niteowlneils 22:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is true. One particular example, the Kensington Welfare Rights Union (needs article) has a long history of erecting tent cities, which recently have been termed "Bushvilles" but in the mid-'90s were simply called "Tent City."  But this term is in fact often used generically rather than referring to a particular location. NTK 06:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

=Article Bias=

While generally well written, this article shows partisan bias against the Seattle Tent Cities and those who advocate them. The first half or so isn't bad at all, but the political point of view becomes more and more strident through the second half. It would be great to see it touched up to either show no bias one way or the other, or perhaps add a section describing the arguments that the proponents and opponents espouse, as well as who the principal proponents and opponents are. I don't have any expertise or experience on this topic, live thousands of miles away from Seattle, have no prior knowledge (or, I hope, bias) on this topic, and I've never been active in any of politics related to it.


 * Agreed on the bias. The article could also use a little more organization.  It also seems a bit heavy on the Tent City 4 information, much of which will probably become irrelevant over time.  I'm not saying that is bad, just that it would be nice to have more information about Tent City 1, 2, and 3.  Nobody appears to have touched this in a while, so I'll put it on my watchlist and try to take a stab at it myself. --Tuxmelvin 21:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It used to be much less biased before a major overhaul by one anon. Agree it's way too POV now. Niteowlneils 22:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It would seem some relevant and interesting information was eliminated in that overhaul, some of which ought to be reintroduced to the article. Tuxmelvin 22:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I re-introduced the bit about some homeless people having jobs, and tried to remove some more of the POV and add more balanced info sources. Nice job on the edit where you split the TC4 controversy from the main content, etc. BTW. Niteowlneils 01:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to be full of disinformation, and I'm not sure what is fact and what isn't, so I'm not removing anything without checking it out first. I think information about Tent City, how it works, etc, ought to be seperated from the controversy surrounding it. --Tuxmelvin 23:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by 67.161.112.231 due to the fact that the revision reintroduced POV. I also think it introduced a few valid points, and may have even been a better read, but given that it's purpose was clearly to reintroduce POV, no matter how pretty, I simply reverted it. I also added a few of the valid points. I think it is of note that the current location is very close to 3 public schools, for example. I honestly think the fight over permits, etc., is completely unworthy of mention. The only people that care are those who are opposed to Tent City 4. It is not something that will be noteworthy a year from now, beyond a mention that SHARE/WHEEL has not been consistent about permits. This article needs more about what Tent City is, and not what peoples opinions are. Just for the record, I live on Finn Hill and am generally opposed to Tent City 4's relocation here. That is why I take an interest in it. But I also take interest in the impartiality of this article. --Tuxmelvin 03:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Extended Discussion
One thing I'd like to mention - a quote from the controversy section:

"Executive Sims added five members to the commission and filled them with Homeless advocates. As a result no real work was done by the commission and that caused the report representing the views of special interest groups and not the citizens as intended."

This is far from impartial. First, we have an assumption that no real work was done. Source? Secondly, even if we go ahead and assume that no real work has been done, the words "as a result" imply that those homeless advocates had something to do with the lack of progress. How do we know that? Again, looking for a source. Preferrably not from the "Tent City Solutions" website, whom have been against the current Tent City program in the Seattle area from the very beginning. Pilaremo 05:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree on the lack of impartiality. It may have resulted in the views of the special interest groups, but work was done. Bobblehead


 * The reason for that statement in the report was the fact the "final report" was drafted from information supplied by county staff, not with direction from the commission. The commission was guided by staff to see only this information and efforts by commission members to provide additional information (the documentation of criminal activity, police reports, even eye witness's) were suppressed.  The commission was formed by the council with the intent of "Citizens" being appointed by their council members to represent them.  The Executive turned it into a mess by adding 5 "at large" members and then loaded up the commission with representatives of the special interest groups that were providing stateholder input on the commission to form the executives 10 year plan to end homelessness.  If you wanted to create a shill commission you would do EXACTLY what the executive did.  The "opposition group" you refer to has been involved in every commission, every cities process for drafting their rules, and represnted every community that TC4 has moved to.  It is used as a vital resource for information by city, county councils, and the media.  It has the credentials and legitimacy as a source even though those supporting the special interest group running the camps don't like them.  It is understandable why.  Even one of the biggest supporters of TC4 stated recently in a public hearing that reason TC3 moves around Seattle without problems and TC4 is mired in controversy is because TC4 was created to do just that as it is a political venture.  -- Coz


 * Then cite the report filed by Tent City Solutions, its conclusions, and remove the bias from the article (which I just did). Unfortunately, the wording used in the noted section is one that is only shared by those opposed to Tent Cities and would not be one that is shared by those that approved of CACHE's actions and the results of that report. Basically a directly violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Bobblehead 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tent City Solutions did not file a report. It is posted on their web site because, despite being directed to by the council, executive staff refuses to acknowledge the existance of the report.  The wording that you posted was predetermined text provided by the executives staff in advance of the commissions work and does not represent the council, commission, or pretty much anyone not tied into trying to validate the agenda of SHARE.  I will work on rewording that section again later. -- Coz


 * Re-word away. Just make sure you source. Preferrably not to the Tent City Solutions site. ;) --Bobblehead 07:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tent City Solutions link
Considering their bias against Tent City 4, how appropriate are they as sources? --Bobblehead 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Using that logic then the bias FOR Tent City 4 would eliminate every other source listed. The members of that group are deeply involved in every aspect of that issue including commission members, homeless service providers, and elected officials.  In fact there is no other source that has as much inner knowledge of TC4 then they have. Coz


 * Except many of the broad statements presented on their webpage are in direct opposition to what the police are saying and TCS provides no evidence to counter the statements provided by the police. --Bobblehead 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for citing a prime example of the misinformation being fed to the people. Despite countless documented incidents surrounding the camp the "spin" put out continually refers to crime ONLY inside the camp.  Campers having beer parties on people's porches didn't count in the "official" point of view. Sex offenders living in camp, and re-offending, are not counted because the re-offense occurs outside of camp.  Campers, even permanent residents, are only considered residents when they behave, once they get into trouble SHARE/WHEEL denys any connection with them.  Since they refuse to keep any records of who lives in camp it is easy for them to perpetuate that lie.  Even with all that the article defies the facts posted in its own sidebar that showed a sizable increase in crime just like they had in Bothell, Woodinville, and Bellevue.  Interesting enough all those increases in crime dropped back down the year after their stay.  Amazing huh?  REAMS of documentation about the crime problems in every community has been submitted as evidence to every city, the county, and the media, yet the lies continue to be reported over the hard data. Only Bellevue had the integrity to look at it in depth and they reported that it was indeed as bad, even worse, than the "opposition" claimed. Ask the line officers and EMS workers about what goes on in Tent City and then look at what the Public Relations department feeds the media and you wonder which group is living on a different planet.  Coz


 * I think this is an issue that is difficult to be neutral about. I happen to live in Woodinville, just 1.5 miles from Tent City 4.  For reference, Woodinville is a small, outlying semi-rural suburb of Seattle, with middle class houses (like mine!) on the steep, forested slopes near downtown, and McMansions sprouting up in the densely wooded hills to the East.  It's nice and quiet and has a pretty low crime rate.  When Tent City came here in 2004, we aquired at least one permanent panhandler resident who has stayed ever since.  My wife saw 3 new panhandlers downtown yesterday.  That's a LOT for a town of only 9000 people.


 * Last summer, we had a rash of aggressive daylight burglaries in my modest neighborhood by someone who was willing to hide in the yard until an opportunity came to steal something portable, like a purse left on a table while the owner was in another room! Not sure there is a connection, but we went about a decade without any real buglaries before that.  We also had a kind of funny incident when a transient saw a bulldozer parked beside a downtown building that was being torn down and decided to finish the job himself!  At least he called the police to report the gas leak from the flattened building.


 * I recognize the lack of affordable housing in King County, but this isn't a viable solution. Given all the panhandling, I just don't buy the story that most of the residents have jobs that don't pay enough for housing.  There are plenty of programs here to help low income people get safe REAL housing, not unsanitary tents.  24.16.15.13 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the crime page on Tentcitysolutions.com and notice the trends that every community where they go see. The numbers for Bellevue are being worked on now but the citizens reports so far indicate that all the same crime problems that Finn Hill, Rose Hill, and Woodinville saw happened there as well.  In the begining it was thought that these crimes were being committed by those that follow the camp around but are not allowed in because of their substance abuse problems.  Now the arrest records are showing that TC4 residents are involved as well.  Oh, and the barber shop incident wasn't that funny because it was not ready to be torn down due to the fact the asbestos wasn't cleaned out yet and as you mentioned the gas was still on site.  The party committing the crime was a TC4 resident celibrating New Years eve by plowing down the building.  -- [Coz]

=External Links=

I retitled a link that goes to a website that is clearly in opposition to Tent City 4. The perspective of the link should be made clear on the Wikipedia page, rather than portraying it as an "history". If you have problems with this change please address them here.--Chinawhitecotton 08:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

=Tent City 4=

The Tent City 4 section has become large enough to get it's own article. How about changing the Tent City 4 section into a brief description about its origins and then provide a link to a full article on Tent City 4. --Bobblehead 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To avoid this article being taken over by Tent City 4 and barring any complaints I'm going to move the Tent City 4 section to it's own article called 'Tent City 4 (King County, Washington)' on Tuesday, June 6 and leave behind:




 * Tent City 4 is a homeless encampment of up to 100 people created in May of 2004 and limits itself to eastern King County outside of Seattle. Minors are not allowed in Tent City 4, although there is a provision for emergency situations. Campers may have their own tents or single men or women may stay in community tents separate from each other to make people feel safer. Portable toilets and dumpsters are provided to address sanitation concerns. As of August 2004 a portable shower has been constructed for the camp. To address safety concerns, there is only one entry/exit to the camp, which is guarded at all times.


 * Because Tent City 4 established itself without permits or public process it has faced opposition in communities it moves to. This opposition, fueled by |reported increases in crime in the areas hosting Tent City 4, has resulted in the suburban cities working on creating code amendments for permitting that attempt balance the desires of churches choosing to host the encampments and community desires for rules that address their public safety and welfare concerns.


 * These rules are evolving as the issue works its way through commissions, city councils and the court system.


 * --Bobblehead 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead, I find the Tent City 4 entry in the main article to be incendiary and perjorative. In particular...


 * "...in light of failures to report numerous sex offenders, residential and commercial burglars, violent individuals committing assaults to community members and neighbors, and controlled substance abuse within the encampment executive tents..."


 * WTF??? Do you think there would be a tent city if things were in reality as they are written here?


 * I coordinate the volunteer meal program for one of the aforementioned churches who is there pretty frequently. This isn't some abstract idea to me-these are people I know.  First, every resident comes through the door gets phoned in to the county sherriff's office.  Did you know that?  Sex offenders are barred...did you know that?  Crime is negligible, and the pdf linked to in the copy says that, but the copy reads "...fueled by reported increases in reported crime and unreported mischief in the areas hosting Tent City 4..."


 * Again, WTF? Whoever wrote this has a serious axe to grind.  I don't care how much they don't like homeless people, this section of the main article is inaccurate, poorly written, and misleading.


 * My proposed change is:


 * Tent City 4 is a mobile homeless encampment of up to 100 people created in May 2004, currently rotating between host sites in eastern King County outside of Seattle.  Residents are typically adult men and women, although there is an emergency provision for homeless dependent children. Residents typically use tent city as a temporary solution for homelessness before securing permanent housing.  Most residents work or have some source of income, or have disability that precludes full-time work.  Residents stay in single or couples’ tents; singles may also stay in gender-specific tents, including a larger tent for newly arrived males. Portable toilets and dumpsters are secured and paid for by camp residents.  A portable shower with water heater is on site, and limited power is provided by the host community for administration, kitchen, and multimedia tents. Residents rotate duties including constant security watches.  A typical stay for a resident is under 3 months, with a few longer-term residents.


 * Tent City 4 has historically been invited to reside on the campuses of East King County churches. In turn, the churches have secured 90 day use permits from the hosting municipality.  Cities continue to cooperate with hosting facilities by rotating the duration and frequency of stay, typically without incident.  Media coverage of residences typically interviews a few local residents who are opposed to Tent City’s presence, with the overwhelming majority of community residents unopposed.  Local church, business, and community organizations participate in outreach programs to deliver and serve meals to the residents on an ongoing daily basis.


 * All potential residents are screened for outstanding warrants, sex offenses, and legal issues by Tent City administration prior to admission. Reports of increase in local crimes are anecdotal, with statistics bearing no increase in local crime rates as a result of tent city presence.  Local city municipal courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of churches to host Tent City, with restrictions on the frequency of stays in a calendar year.


 * and if you want to add the existing from the other page,


 * On May 13, 2006, Tent City 4 relocated from Bellevue to a Woodinville, WA property owned by the Northshore United Church of Christ. The city of Woodinville has opposed the presence of Tent City and has spent significant city resources to attempt to force the residents to relocate.  Tent City has been approved to take up residence in Bothell on August 12, 2006 for another 90 day period; on June 9, Judge Charles Mertel ruled that the city of Woodinville’s agreement with Tent City 4 from 2004 precludes the current residence on private property, and that the residents must move by midnight, June 17.  In response, NUCC has filed an appeal with Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals that will be heard on June 16, stating:


 * 1.	Woodinville’s land use code as applied is an unconstitutional infringement on the NUCC’s religious expression. The City of Woodinville’s Ordinance No. 419 contains a moratorium on all land use applications in the R-1 zone, with exceptions for development on residential and city property. The stated purpose of the moratorium is to “preserve the current status quo” and determine how best to process the “numerous permit applications for development activity within the City’s residential neighborhoods” that “will irreversibly alter the character and physical environment of these areas.” When the City refused to accept NUCC’s application for a temporary use permit to host Tent City 4, the basis for doing so was the moratorium. Tent City 4 does not irreversibly alter the character of the R-1 zone; it is a temporary encampment of homeless people. The moratorium is overly broad and not the least restrictive means to protect NUCC’s right to minister to the homeless, a central tenet of its religious expression.


 * 2.	The NUCC did not breach the 2004 Temporary Property Use Agreement. The court found that NUCC breached a 2004 document entitled “Temporary Property Use Agreement” when it failed to obtain a permit from the City of Woodinville prior to Tent City 4 coming onto its property. As a preliminary matter, the 2004 agreement regulated only the 2004 stay, and should not have been applied to the 2006 dispute. However, even if the 2004 agreement governed the 2006 stay, NUCC did not breach the agreement because it did not extend an offer to Tent City 4 to come onto its land until after the King County Superior Court issued an order expressly authorizing it to host Tent City 4. Additionally, NUCC attempted to apply for a permit from the City of Woodinville, but the City refused to accept NUCC’s application. If the 2004 Temporary Property Use Agreement applied to the 2006 visit, the City, not NUCC, violated the agreement.


 * 3.	The NUCC was denied its constitutional right to a trial by jury. The King County Superior Court case was filed by the City of Woodinville on May 12, 2006, and assigned a trial date of October 29, 2007. The NUCC exercised its constitutional right to demand a trial before a jury of its peers. Although there were many disputed issues of fact requiring a full trial, the court refused NUCC’s request and entered final judgment on the merits of the case on June 12, 2006, only one month after the case was filed and before the NUCC was even allowed to conduct discovery.


 * NUCC vows to continue to assert that to be homeless is not a crime, and that private parties have rights to host tent cities that are not specifically enumerated in previous agreements.


 * --Cyclopedic 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with your "edits" are that they are completly without basis in fact and 100% motivated by your attempt to insert NUCC's spin on their blatant violation of the written agreement they made with Woodinville.  The "plan" has always been to try and distract everyone from the basic breech of contract and that is what you are doing.


 * The article as written is very well researched, completly based on fact, by people who have INTIMATE knowledge in ALL sides of this issue. You can save your spin control for the media that loves your sound bites but it isn't going to play here.


 * You stated "WTF??? Do you think there would be a tent city if things were in reality as they are written here?". The truth is that there wouldn't be if the public knew the documented truth about what goes on in and around the camp.  I have to give credit to Sandy Brown and Scott Morrow.  They understand that if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough people will believe it.  When the media does no research on the issue and just reports the sound bites they get from the proponants of the camp then the truth is going to be hard to get out.  The reason that the support for SHARE and Tent city is dwindling is because people are starting to see the truth and pulling their support.


 * Your anger is misdirected, there is no one here that doesn't "like homeless people". People here like ACCURACY and this is one place that advocates like you CAN NOT control the message in an attempt to hide the facts.  I am sorry you refuse to see the truth about TC4, but people like you ignore the truth because you want to beleive that you are doing something to help, rather than harm, the homeless.


 * A prime example of the crime problem was the break in at Macks Corner right after TC4 arrived. Camp supporters always try and claim that if you don't catch the criminal in the act that it wasn't TC4 related, but the truth is that crime rates soar in EVERY area that hosts TC4 and they fall again after they leave.  Still we have the WELL DOCUMENTED case of a Bellevue TC4 resident being arrested THREE TIMES in one day for theft from a local business.  Everytime they released him he returned to the store and robbed it again.  When they finally went to his tent they found $5000 in stolen goods.  And of course there was a a TC4 reject that robbed the WAMU in Bellevue and had Downtown Bellevue shut down for hours because of the fake bomb he had in his backpack.  Oh, and you of course remember the TC4 resident that hotwired the bulldozer and plowed down the barbershop in downtown Woodinville?


 * Your proposed changes are intended to replace well researched content with a page of NUCC's web site that is designed to place "Spin" on the court ruling against them on the breech of contract case. The appeals court will see right past them and TC4 will be moving on Saturday.


 * --Coz

Coz, there are good reasons for concern in any situation. I find your arguments to have some merit, but I find your methodolgy of disallowing any voice that dissents from your opinion to be unfortunate. Also, I believe your exaggerations and misrepresentations of fact do not serve your argument.

I am not a resident of TC4 or a NUCC member, I'm a member of an Eastside Church-one of many churches, by the way-who regularly visit TC4 to serve meals. I am fortunate to have a stable Eastside home and family. I have not forgotten my responsiblity as a middle class member of an affluent society.

I do not condone or excuse any illegal activity perpetrated by a current or former resident of TC4: I do however believe in restorative justice. I believe TC4's policy also is to exclude residents who are discovered to be involved in criminal activity. At the same time, I do not demonize groups of people on the basis of individuals who do not reflect the entirety of the group. Imagine what Washington would be like if every mayor were compared to Jim West of Spokane. Groups of individuals who are lumped together and treated like outcasts of race, class, or other minority are integral to the experience of society as a whole. Rembember the 'final solution'? It wasn't just for Jews, it was for gays, Gypsies, and other elements defined as 'undesirable'. What is homelessness in King County but an uncomfortable reminder of divisions between haves and have-nots in our society?

I don't hear you advocating for shutting down of entire neighborhoods because some of their residents engage in criminal activity. However, by extension you paint the entire TC4 community as reprehensible and worthy of banishment to anywhere but here, while completely ignoring the reality of the costs of significant homelessness right here in East King County. Most TC4 residents come right out of the fabric of our society, perhaps not from Medina, but quite a few from the Eastside. The fact that you paint the entire administration and residents of TC4 as a gang of lawless drug-using criminal sex offenders speaks volumes about you and your fears, and not so much about them. It comes across to me as straight classism. I sincerely hope you never experience prejudice in your life. I dunno...maybe it would give you some perspective you're not showing here.

So if you are unwilling to hear NUCC's arguments in court or on this page, my advice is stay home and watch TV. For those of us who work to create solutions to this problem, your approach seems to be a sure way to divide the world into neat little boxes labeled 'us' and 'them'. Maybe you could go serve dinner sometime to meet the ones who are making something better for themselves...but remember, the average resident moves on to find permanent housing in a couple of months.

--Cyclopedic 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You REALLY do not want to compare resume's with me on who does more to help the homeless, who is working hardest to provide for REAL solutions to homelessness and affordable housing, or who is most involved in the process. I will also ignore all your inflamatory rhetoric, backhanded insults, and attempts to introduce outside issues into this one.


 * You have a narrow perspective on this issue, seeing it from one side, and as I have seen dozens of times, refuse to see anything but what you think is going on. I can tell you for a fact, having been deeply involved in every aspect of this issue, that what you say is not what is really happening. I have reams of testimony and documentation that takes up a whole file cabinet drawer from being involved in this issue before you ever even heard of it.


 * That aside I AM NOT trying to silence anyone's opinion, my history of working on this, and other articles, it to be sure that what REALLY is happening is documented rather than basing it on sound bites and media snapshots. There is no exagerations, or misinformation, in fact it is toned down because of the rules here that require information to be documented.


 * You mention that those that break the law are evicted from camp, but that is not true. The campers who were arrested doing drugs while on security shift were allowed right back into camp.  The camper who was arrested several times for robbery was always allowed back into camp.  There is a long list of individuals who were allowed to stay in camp despite blatant violations of the code of conduct, or the law.  As long as you were one of the "core group" you got a free pass.  You play Scott Morrow's game and you get to do what you want, you don't and they invent a reason to get rid of you.  This is from personal contact with case workers, campers, and service providers who know far more about this issue than either of us. Working with the Committee to End Homelessness, who by the way does not endorse or condone Tent Cities, I can tell you that they are able to place all of the 50-60 residents.


 * Bottom line -- Leave your soapbox at home, I will as well, this is about crafting a FACT based article that allows someone reading it to have an understanding of what the story is.  If you can't handle that then you need to find another forum because this is NOT the place for a posting Spin and distortion.  As I said, I needed to learn that when I started, you need to learn it as well, because neither of us is going to turn this into a polarized article.  And lastly I had to fight to keep this article alive some time ago.  The community will delete it rather than let it degenerate into a pissing contest.


 * Coz


 * In reviewing the above quotes from a few days ago, I'm beginning to see a pattern. Not only is there a warrant search on all applicants, but I know from news reports that this has been in place since 2004 and I have verified again how this works in the last day. So: if someone demolishes a house after being refused from TC4_nine months prior_to the incident, or if another refused applicant does something stupid in a bank...how does that reflect on this issue?  Neither of these individuals were ever TC4 residents.  Guilt by association doesn't even apply-those are simply straw man arguments.


 * And by trying to demonize Scott Morrow, who is apparently part of SHARE but in leadership in another of the 12 organizations that share the name, what is the point? Ad Hominem arguments usually evaporate under closer scrutiny.  When your citations of events don't pan out, or are just plain wrong, what conclusions can the uninformed reader draw from your claims?  --Cyclopedic 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All those caps...? 'Pissing contest', 'narrow perspective', 'before I've ever heard of it', 'dozens of times'...for not knowing me or anything about me before the last day, you seem to be quite invested in convincing me or someone reading this of the veracity of your position.  Perhaps you have a perspective of events that is tempered by personal experience, and this is worthy.  This doesn't however make your perspective the ultimate arbiter. By simply deleting and dismissing talking points that are a legal part of the history of the active case that will be heard in open court 6/16/06, you discourage debate on an issue about which you seem otherwise well informed.  This has the opposite effect for me, because if you want me or anyone to consider to your position, the 'pissing contest' which you claim to want to avoid becomes real.  When you use words like 'spin' and 'distortion', accusations of personal attack end up becoming attacks in their own right.


 * If you truly have been involved with 'every aspect' of this issue, then reading a divergent perspective should give you no reason to delete it. Your argument-and each of us has apparently quoted facts with and without supporting citiations-your argument will stand or fail on its own merit.  I've yet to meet the mortal who has the lock on objective truth. And FTR, this perspective is a choice to refute the argument without attacking the individual.


 * --Cyclopedic 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The funny thing about this is that I do know you. We have talked on several occasions.  Anyhow, i'm leaving personalities and debate out of this.  That is for somewhere else.  Here is where we discuss how to edit the articles.  Towards that end I have added what is a proper method to include the NUCC press release into the article.


 * -- Coz


 * I'm positive you have confused me with someone else. I would certainly extend you every courtesy either way.


 * From someone who wants to 'leave debate' out of this, I've heard quite a bit. I unfortunately now have doubts whether many of your quoted facts are true.   Regardless, the question remains how to present facts without injecting bias that skews reportage into editorialism.


 * I value Bobbblehead's input regarding inclusion of the basics of NUCC's case on the other TC4 page. I don't think it presents a completely balanced picture, and if it's not enough for you to delete my entries from the main page, but from the debate pages as well, this can be like a thousand other Wikipedia entires where one person claims to have a lock on absolute truth to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Neither of these sites are a final work, as the 17th and the days that will follow are yet to be written.


 * I like Joseph Freeman's quote, "The best we can say of any account is not that it is the real truth at last, but that this is how the story appears now."


 * --Cyclopedic 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored the NPOV flag. I conducted extensive interviews of the Executive Advisor and members of the Executive Committee at Tent City in the last 24 hours.  Much information has been missing from this and the main listing until now.  As with investigative journalism, there is no replacement for firsthand observation.  This does not make me an 'advocate' or 'activist'; my goal is dispassionate reportage.
 * --Cyclopedic 05:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. For you to be "dispassionate" about this issue is akin to calling Ken Schram "moderate". You may have 24 hours of one sided experience but I have 2 YEARS of involvement on this issue from ALL angles.  Your complete distortions of the truth the last couple days shows that you are not practicing investigative journalism and your statements al along sho you to be very much an 'advocate" for SHARE and NUCC.  Your position within that structure clearly prevents you from having an impartial viewpoint. -- [Coz]


 * At this point I see little choice but to request a moderator to review the situation here. I have consistently tried to observe the big three in the NPOV.  This page, like every other is subject to defacement.  I see a situation where one person with set views repeatedly removes material that diverges from his viewpoint.  Bobblehead has consistently shown edits that respect the input of all contributors...if not him, then another.  I can say how many years I've been involved with this issue, but it isn't going to protect the environment that Wikipedia strives to create.  --Cyclopedic 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Request for Mediation on this and other Tent City entry pending. --Cyclopedic 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to edit the article as you see appropriate, of course. The only thing you have to do is make sure it complies with WP:NPOV and that you give equal weight to both the proponents of Tent City 4 and the opponents. My only reason for reverting your change was because the tent city 4 section of this article is meant to comply with WP:SS and it added information that was more than a quick summary and had nothing to do with the content.  I'm not familiar with Tent City 4 and act more as an editor of the articles.  At this point the only other person that is actively editing the articles seems to be an opponent of Tent City 4, which means the article does have a bit of a bias in that direction. However if you want to act as a proponent editor, please feel free to do so.  However, having said that, the detail that you provided for the NUCC and SHARE/WHEEL appeal is a bit much for wikipedia.  What would be prefered is that you provide a short, concise summary of their appeal and then provide a link to a non-Wikipedia site that provided the detail.  Here is an example of this from the Tent City 4 article:


 * On August 13, 2004, CACHE submitted its final report citing a need for homeless encampments "because current regional efforts are inadequate to meet the needs of homeless men, women and families".

One sentence that provides a quick snapshot of what the CACHE report says. So, happy editting and thanks for contributing!--Bobblehead 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, concise is good, and that's precisely why I've edited out the inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric. I do value brevity, and the existing copy I replaced was nearly identical in size.

---Cyclopedic 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[[User] 10:16, 15 June 2006
 * Amended --Cyclopedic 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you, Cyclopedic. A friend of mine has been volunteering for Tent City for some time now and his main interest has always been to help people. If Coz was truly unbiased he/she would note the good things that have happened in Tent City as well. However it is plainly obvious that Coz has not, at the very least, been to Tent City often to get the real story on what happens. If you cannot get a verifiable unbiased source on information you post, it doesn't belong here. Such was the TC Solutions link.

On top of that, Coz never actually answered my previous question/statement - There is NO direct, logical correlation between Executive Sims adding homeless advocates to the commission and "no real work" getting done. Your quoted statement makes two leaps of logic - 1) That the addition of homeless advocates makes it impossible to get any work done and 2) That no work was actually done - we still need a source on that. I don't expect one, because you have no way of knowing how much work they did - which is the problem with quoting biased statements.

-- Pilaremo 11:18 PM PST, 11/20/06

No mention of refugee camps
This seems like a very significant omission. Dalf | Talk 06:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nickelsville
I've updated the paragraph on Nickelsville (they are on the move today). The citation style in that paragraph is something of a mess; I have not taken it up on myself to fix it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maricopa
Tent city in Maricopa County Jail, headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is missing. --Klare Kante (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Shanty Town
Isn't Tent City just a euphemism for shantytown or slum? I suggest a merger.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Heading text
Camp Quixote, Olympia, Washington  Camp Quixote is a tent city, that from its inception in February 2007, practices a self-governed community with logistical support and sponsorship by PANZA, a Thurston County collaboration of faith communities, individuals and organizations. Camp Quixote began as a protest by homeless advocates and the homeless as a protest response to Olympia City ordinances which prohibited "sitting on the sidewalks". The Olympia Unitarian Universalist Congregation offered sanctuary to the tent city residents when the city officials ordered them to dismantle the camp. Other faith communities joined in the effort; transforming an adversarial community issue into a gradual acceptance of the camp residents and their nomadic 90-day rotation condoned by a new ordinance enacted by the major cities - Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey and Thurston County. Thanks to the persevering work of PANZA, Camp Quixote will be in its new permanent home --- Quixote Village, providing permanent supportive housing to 30 residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by "CQ22007" (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Heading text
Camp Quixote, Olympia, Washington  Camp Quixote is a tent city, that from its inception in February 2007, practices a self-governed community with logistical support and sponsorship by PANZA, a Thurston County collaboration of faith communities, individuals and organizations. Camp Quixote began as a protest by homeless advocates and the homeless as a protest response to Olympia City ordinances which prohibited "sitting on the sidewalks". The Olympia Unitarian Universalist Congregation offered sanctuary to the tent city residents when the city officials ordered them to dismantle the camp. Other faith communities joined in the effort; transforming an adversarial community issue into a gradual acceptance of the camp residents and their nomadic 90-day rotation condoned by a new ordinance enacted by the major cities - Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey and Thurston County. Thanks to the persevering work of PANZA, Camp Quixote will be in its new permanent home --- Quixote Village, providing permanent supportive housing to 30 residents.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Tent city. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002834/http://www.dignityvillage.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36 to http://www.dignityvillage.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002842/http://www.dignityvillage.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38 to http://www.dignityvillage.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312092510/http://anitraweb.org/homelessness/faqs/tentcities.html to http://anitraweb.org/homelessness/faqs/tentcities.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708190452/http://dailyuw.com/2009/3/5/nickelsville-leaves-u-district-after-four-and-half/ to http://dailyuw.com/2009/3/5/nickelsville-leaves-u-district-after-four-and-half/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725081628/http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Housing/TentCity/B67Tent%20Cty4FinalRept.pdf to http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Housing/TentCity/B67Tent%20Cty4FinalRept.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828200034/http://www.ci.bothell.wa.us/dept/CM/PIO/NewsEvents/releases/2006/081106TentCity.html to http://www.ci.bothell.wa.us/dept/CM/PIO/NewsEvents/releases/2006/081106TentCity.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910001328/http://www.transitionpark.com/ to http://www.transitionpark.com/
 * Added tag to http://dailyme.com/story/2010091300000796/tent-city-denizens-back-encampment.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023161332/http://www.nice.com/news/show_pr.php?id=211 to http://www.nice.com/news/show_pr.php?id=211
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117161910/http://www.mcso.org/JailInformation/TentCity.aspx to http://www.mcso.org/JailInformation/TentCity.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717123237/http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12318196 to http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12318196
 * Added tag to https://www.brimo.sk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Move to homeless camp
The term "tent city" is colloquial but it isn't as apt and to-the-point as homeless camp. The current term also confuses the idea of a homeless camp with a refugee camp, and while there may be some equivalence, the idea is that homeless camps are akin to slums, while refugee camps are managed by military, and sometimes integrated with military camps. The idea of using the term "tent" perhaps comes from the idea of separating homeless camps which use tents, and more permanent camps which use other materials and which are considered to be somewhat permanent. The term "city" is inaccurate, as these are not really "cities," regardless of how large they are. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Move to "Homeless encampments"
By 2024, as the issue of homelessness has been researched in greater depth, the term "homeless encampment"which is more neutral and descriptive in toneis often used by academics and researchers. Homeless encampment can include semi-permanent as well as temporary shelters, not just tents, and as a result in also used by journalists covering relevant stories. For example, the term, homeless encampment" includes makeshift structures and even vehicles. As more and more people, including the working poor and retirees, are unable to find affordable housing, they are turning to homeless encampments. In reports such as this Canadian 2024 reportwhich is a part of a series on Income Research Paper, and is published by the Canadian Human Rights Commissionthe term is used to discuss the social, economic, and policy implications of these types of living arrangements.

In her 2024 report, the Canadian Federal Housing Advocate, Marie-Josee Houle, wrote that, "In the context of the review, the terms “homeless encampments” or “encampments” refer to temporary outdoor accommodations for individuals and groups of unhoused and unsheltered individuals that have been established – often without permission – on public property or privately-owned land. The growth in number and size of such encampments is the consequence of a severe lack of accessible, affordable, and adequate housing. The Advocate recognizes that there are often challenges with terminology, but has chosen in her Interim Report to use the language which is most commonly in use for now. She recognizes, however, that the term homeless encampments may not reflect everyone’s reality and differs from terms commonly used internationally, such as informal settlements."

It is noteworthy that the articles cited here that use the term "tent city" date from the 1990s and early 2000s. The entire article List of tent cities in the United States cites mainly RSs that do not use the term "tent city"; they use the term "homeless encampments".Oceanflynn (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)