General Discussion

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[1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tent City Solutions link

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

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. [2] --Bobblehead 04:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]