City jobs grow out of Seattle homelessness crisis

government solve all problems

In April 2016, I told you how the embattled Seattle Mayor Ed Murray decided to tackle the severe homelessness crisis in Seattle. He hired a “homelessness czar” to “lead and align efforts across City departments, provide oversight and evaluation of data and outcomes, provide strategic guidance on developing policy and protocols, and lead external engagement and communication strategies.”

And, as many could have predicted, the homelessness czar (and the high salary) is not enough to solve the problem. What to do? Hire more people!

From Two new jobs have been created to tackle the Seattle homelessness crisis. This adds to other positions directly related to homelessness the city created within the last year.

The new positions bring the total number of new homeless-related jobs to six that the city has hired for since August. The two positions currently advertised for will potentially pay more than $100,000 each.

    • Homelessness czar: $137,500 annually
    • Homeless encampment trash/litter program administrator: up to $46.80 / hour
    • Two homeless encampment field operations advisers (x2): up to $42 / hour
    • Executive for encampment response: Between $119,997.36 and $140,000.41 annually
    • Homeless communications director: Between $91,872 and $125,843.76 annually

Adding all that up – at the high end of estimated annual pay – it comes to $537,908.17 in new salaries.

Before Seattle and King County declared a state of emergency over the homeless crisis in 2015, the city spent about $40 million on the issue; the county spent $36 million. After the state of emergency was declared, Seattle put up $5 million more, and the county threw in $2 million more.

Job descriptions

“Executive overseeing the homeless encampment response program” pays between $119,997.36 and $140,000.41. The role of the executive will be to lead cleanup programs for homeless encampments on public property while finding housing for people living in those camps. The purpose will be to move people living in tents into “indoor housing alternatives.”

Communications director will be dedicated solely to the homeless response program. This position pays between $91,872 and $125,843.76 annually. They will handle all internal and external communications around encampment issues. They will work with everyone from the mayor to the council, the police department and more to create messaging around homelessness.

And let’s not forget, in August 2016, the city hired George Scarola to be Seattle’s homelessness czar. Scarola is charged with leading the city’s homeless response efforts, organizing multiple departments and providing oversight and strategic guidance.

Seattle began hiring again in March 2017, this time to solve the homelessness issue. One position was for an administrator for a homeless encampment trash/litter cleanup program. The position is paid up to $46.80 an hour and was listed as temporary. The city also advertised to hire two field positions that would coordinate cleanup of encampments. They are paid up to $42 an hour.


15 responses to “City jobs grow out of Seattle homelessness crisis

  1. I think homelessness should be illegal. The persons gathered off the streets by the police would not be put into jail they would be given crisis counselors. These counselors would intervene at necessary levels to make sure the victims and offenders successfully maintain a residence. It is so frustrating to see more and more thrill intoxication efforts going on because I really do believe that it changes the brains chemistry and destroys healthy tissue and prevents persons from properly taking care of themselves. These would not be high paying positions.


    • While I do not like to see people homeless, I don’t think it should be illegal. You cannot regulate free will, even if proggies would love to rule that.

      King County (Seattle area) has “safe” injection sites for people, including the homeless, where they can shoot up their drugs and receive counseling. They also provide low-income housing where addicts can drink. It’s a cycle that the government believes they are helping, yet it is not working, apparently.


      • The whole purpose of a government is to ensure a civil society. Urinating and defecating in the streets, being subjected to freezing, heat, wind, snow, rain, hail, sun, sleet and ice could not allow for a human being to process sleep. Human beings also have a will to be violent and steal along with other harmful behavior. None of which are okay. Teaching right from wrong is a process of caring, a necessary emotion to nurture a successful life and a civil society. If the government cared for human beings they would be giving them high nutrient therapy and the support to heal their life and NOT the legalization of addiction.


  2. traildustfotm

    Thank you for this article, DCG. It points out the madness and corruption of left leaning politicians.

    A few years ago I tried to bring it down to an understandable political cartoon illustration. My intent was to help my leftist friends finally see my point about government as a nanny state. I illustrated it as a person walking up to a homeless person and giving them $20. Then the original giver was forced to only give through a government authorized bureaucrat. So $20 went to the bureaucrat, which went towards the government employee’s salary, pension, medical coverage, and office expense, and finally to the homeless person.

    The math doesn’t add up. How did the poor man get the $20 when it had gone into the bottomless pit of government? Simply stated, the difference was made up for by the tax payers. The original generous Samaritan was taxed $20 for the homeless individual, plus their portion to cover a six-figure salary and a self perpetuating parasitic department.

    PS: My leftist friends, being profoundly dishonest, didn’t see my point.

    Liked by 4 people

    • TD . . . You have correctly stated the problem and how it works when government is involved in taking care of people who want to . . . not be employed because their use of whatever substance prevents them from being gainfully employed. You cannot legislate this problem away. The taxpayers are suffering under the weight of trying to help individuals who choose to do things that keep them from having a roof over their heads. How many landlords want to rent to people who cannot maintain themselves by working??? These are the very people who “maintain” themselves by stealing from others: in my sisters neighborhood, the county put in these supposedly wonderful paved trails, then all the homeless moved in, pitched their tents, urinating and defecating in and all over this supposed park-like setting . . . all of a sudden, there is a rash of break-ins, reaching out from the homeless encampments into what would otherwise be a beautiful, well kept neighborhood. Homes were broken into, garages were broken into, kid’s bikes and other toys were stolen.

      I think a better way of handling this situation is make it illegal to set up these encampments, the county should purchase some land, put up rudimentary shelters (bunk houses) and the individuals should have to plant and maintain gardens to eat from. They should be required to work in order to earn a place to lay their head, and have food to eat. The punishment would be lifted from the shoulders of those who are already working (the taxpayer.) When government invests in “helping the down trodden.” we just get more and more of the down trodden . . . until there is no end in site. In by gone eras there was such a thing as “poor farms” . . . I believe that it is time to bring that concept back!

      DCG . . . excellent article! Bless you for bringing it to us.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Seattle’s city government, through its indulgence and “tolerance,” created the homeless problem, but the “solution” is to create more government jobs, thereby enlarging and adding to the government’s power.

    Typical liberal non-solution to problems: An ever larger, more bloated & more powerful government that sucks even more taxpayer dollars. Nor will this “solution” actually solve the homeless problem.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Amen to that! The enlargement of the city’s supposed responsibility to the homeless is really just a means to shackle the poor taxpayer with the very burden you have described above.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. A practical fact you won’t find in any textbook or city council meeting: stupidity is expensive.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The mayor is addressing the problem by saving people from homelessness one person at a time. Give him credit for rescuing those six from homelessness. (Sarc.)
    I see our problems due in large measure to the destroying of our free-market industrial base; that is a major part of the plan to ruin our country. “Protectionism” is a good word, it is not deserving of mockery when applied to the protection of our country, in military, economics, health, immigration policies, our rights to freedom, nor any other way. It is the Globalists, promoters of the U.N., NWO, and other evil ideals leading to tyranny throughout the earth who would have us unprotected in every way. As should be obvious, our military requires a prosperous nation to pay for it. We are borrowing vast sums of money from globalist bankers to pay for their success and the failure of our country in the seeking of mastering the human domain. Not Mexico, not China, not any other nation will pay off our twenty TRILLION dollar (and growing) national debt.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Reblogged this on necltr and commented:

    Say, buddy, can you spare a dime? How about twenty TRILLION dollars? Somehow, the wrong people have been trusted in leadership for a long time.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. When government (or others) provide not only an environment “safe” from being held accountable (legally, civilly, morally, ethically), but also provide the means by which such persons can afford to live there without responsibility (thus no financial accountability either), it ENABLES those persons, and WORSE, encourages others like them (and those who maybe hadn’t yet gotten to that point in their thinking, but now might) to pull up and MOVE to such a place. Word gets around. It has a snowballing effect.
    And when more funds are needed to continue increasing such support, they go right to the taxpayers… largely those who have fought their ways to home ownership, in direct opposition to the persons being handed their hard-earned tax dollars!
    What incentive do such growing numbers of enabled persons have to leave such a system (or to vote for the opponents to such a welfare state)? None.
    If such persons are homeless through no fault of their own, an error, or some unforeseen circumstance, help them back up and into life. But don’t provide a path to a lowered humanity. And don’t help out those who continue to pursue the wrong paths in life, make bad choices, live outside the boundaries of the law and social/civil standards, etc. Let them fall… maybe put them in jail, where they’ll likely get better meals & medical care than many who work within the bounds of the law & moral values. And make them work for their living. At least those who are able.


  8. Pingback: First you create the crisis in Seattle – On the Patio

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s