Perhaps some don't understand who lives in tent city. One of my high school classmates is an activist for and resident of Tent city 3. he also holds a degree in computer science and was an executive when I first reconnected with him via the web.

Well the wheels fell off that wagon and he is now a living example of making lemonade from lemons.

Scary idea making university students face something which is happening to hard working people all over the nation.

As for 'freak incidents' we have them all the time in the greater U district.

Tent city had nothing to with the recent shooting near Lander Terry, nor was tent city linked to the hammer assault on a coed trying to move her car. Tent city had nothing to do with the Red Square suicide by fire.

Pervasive Classism. It isn't a surprise that most of the negative sentiment is coming from the previously suburban isolated, and now greekly housed system. The more the classist response, the more this camp should be here.
Always be critical of fear
Matt-

Matthew – while I think your depiction of the demographic of the Facebook group might be correct [it may essentially be an informal roster of the Greek system], if you were to poll kids from the dorms you might find more similarities than differences.

There are so many ways in which this is an opportunity – an opportunity for socially-minded philanthropy and self-interested pedagogy to intersect. There are locations on campus where this can happen, where students from different departments can participate in a valuable service learning - and yet not have TC be a symbol of derision or a target (Sylvan Theater?)

The fact is, bringing this in could create numerous problems which we cannot necessarily foresee.

While it is nice to look after the lower classes of society, this is an educational institution, not a homeless encampment. While I know this school is extremely far-left and classes often mix learning with political indoctrination, I don't think Marxist class-equality theories should be applied to the general landscape of the campus. Reasons for this include:

-Smell
-Noise
-Crime
-Substances

I know a lot of people (mostly the socialist left) think all the homeless are just people who have hit rock bottom. However, this is far from the case as most of the homeless are people with long drug histories or histories of other crime, including prostitution. While it would be admirable to help the homeless community, the entire university does not need to take on the tent city to do so. In fact, there are several student groups, both religious and secular, that routinely provide aid to the homeless. Also, offering a class/service-learning program for the homeless would be feasible and understandable. However, those who do not want to be around the homeless encampment should not be forced to, i.e. having to pass by/through it on the way to a class.

The argument that this is a largely Greek vs. non-Greek phenomenon is far from the truth. While it is true that many Greeks oppose tent city, many non-Greeks such as myself oppose it as well. I was a Senator last year in ASUW, and I learned through that experience how much influence the far-left Senate has on campus policy and how little influence the generally moderate IFC/Panhellenic have. It shouldn't be solely up to the Senate to vote on an issue that equally affects everyone at the university.

I know that, had tent city been around when I was applying for schools, I would have become a Cougar or gone to Western. A school campus should be safe, and bringing in more crime-prone people to an already volatile region sounds like a step in the wrong direction.

As a believer in democracy, I say let the entire student populace vote. Then we'll see if the campus really supports tent city.

-Rob Van Leuven
Sophomore, University of Washington

The Marxism angle is just amusing. It should back to the ash heap of history where it belongs!

Anyways, more to the point... I don't generally believe in government by referendum but this is one issue that, as it affects everyone, shouldn't be decided by a few interest groups (let's face it, student government no longer represents the "collective will" of the student body) with only the president as gatekeeper.

If anything, IFC/Panhel probably represents the interests of the entire student body on this and other campus matters BETTER than the Senate, despite being all-Greek (and I say this as someone who isn't a member of the system himself). And whatever my disagreement with Sean on the larger issue I appreciate his pointing out that the dorm residents would probably feel similarly to the Greek system.

Commuters such as myself may have the luxury of liking this idea more, but only to make themselves feel good--which is utterly selfish.

"This is a city. There are odors (which we smell). There is noise. There is crime. There are substances."
True, but there are things that have an impact at the margin. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to argue that tent city will have no negative impact on any of these variables, as some have?

Rob is spot on when he says that while many people want to help the homeless, such an interaction shouldn't be shoved in the face of all students in this way.

All this talk of a learning opportunity reminds me of people who describe mandatory community service as a "volunteer opportunity". Something that is forced on you by someone else against your will is not an opportunity, it is an obstacle. Let those who (bless them) want to deal with the homeless do so as they always have done, and leave the rest of us out of this scheme.

Unlike many of those who voiced their arguments at that senate meeting, my concerns are not centered on a potential increase in violence and violent crimes, but rather on the fact that, from a business standpoint, tent-city does not make sense. I'm very aware that supporters of tent-city do not justify bringing it to campus with a business argument, but the fact that the University of Washington is a business should not and cannot be ignored.

Apart from my belief that those who will be living in the closest proximity to a possible tent-city are being under-represented (in part, because Greek RSOs have not taken advantage of senate seats [which is another issue completely]), my viewpoint is based on a basic cost-benefit analysis of the situation. In my view, proponents of tent-city have spent the majority of their speaking time defending tent-city residents on the basis of violence, drug use, and cleanliness, and not much speaking to the actual benefits of hosting tent-city. I spoke to this issue at the Senate meeting, and received the response that the benefit of tent-city to the UW was "a unique learning opportunity." First, I do understand the value that smaller schools, namely the school of social work, may derive from visiting tent-city regularly, but I do not see why that value translates to sticking tent-city in the middle of campus. Second, when I noted that a great deal of students don't necessarily want this "learning opportunity" outside their classrooms, I was met with a barrage of moral judgments indicating that only the close-minded would not want this opportunity and that Universities exist to open minds. To me, this sounds more like a learning opportunity being forced upon students who pay exorbitant sums to attend a top tier University.

That said, the learning opportunity, forced or otherwise, seems a meager benefit when weighed against the costs. Of course, the costs, explicit and implicit, can be argued, but to some degree, all of the following costs do exist. First, there is the explicit cost of about $12,000 to host the camp for 90 days, which, though small, will be realized in a time of extreme budget tension. Second, there are the issues of crime and drugs. These, of course, are debatable, but there is an incredibly strong correlation between homeless population in an area and illegal drug use (and violence to a lesser degree). I am very well aware of tent-city's policies on the issues of drug use, but residents ARE free to leave the camp and move about the community, where tent-city policies have no hold. It seems irresponsible to bring this to the only relatively safe and drug-free area in the U-District - Campus. Third, there is the cost of aesthetics. UW students pay a great deal to maintain our beautiful campus and, call it callous, tent-city will be a blight on the campus which could have a potentially adverse effect on prospective new students.

Actually, the pie chart is pretty worthless. With such a small sample size (400 out of 40,000 students) its highly likely that it has self-selection bias. Only those people who are passionately for/against TC3 will complete the survey.

Also, I'm not buying the homeless camp = more crime/litter/noise/etc argument. The Seattle Times did an article and analysis on TC3 back in 2004 and didn't find any significant increase in any of those problems (http://community.seattletimes.nwsourc...)

Also, there is substantial benefit to hosting the TC3 on campus. As we see from prohibition efforts, when you ban something, it doesn't simply go away. Not hosting the TC3 won't mean there are no homeless in the U-District. However, the strict code of conduct for staying in TC3 (http://www.mrsc.org/Contracts/S42TntC...) means that it can help the U-District homeless break the cycle of drug-use/alcoholism that is holding them back. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually saw a decrease in crime/litter/noise/etc.

samt - you should toggle your caps lock key.

sooooo, I don't know about you, but I never been able to score at a bus stop, nor have I witnessed a fight.

Some people have all the luck.

Community Service is something I am very passionate about. I was the community service chair of my fraternity for three years, we cleaned up parks, we restored natural ecosystems, we fed the homeless, etc.
More importantly my house regularly raises over $15,000 a year that we donate to Northwest Harvest through the apple cup run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIiTa2...
I have worked at Morningsong, a homeless family support center, I have literally changed the diapers of homeless children.

My point is that I understand the good that tent city can have, but UW students already have abundant opportunities to help the homeless, or become involved in some civic service, they don’t need to be coerced into doing so by having tent city placed on campus against what seems like majority’s will from polls, and surveys.

It is not appropriate to use the University’s resources on tent city, especially while the UW is going through budget cuts; we already lack the resources to keep libraries and study centers open, we are firing custodians and reducing work-study positions . . . Where do you think the jobless custodians are going to go when they can’t find another job in this tough economy . . . the streets?

It seems like the UW is beginning to legislate morality, which I feel we can all conclude from history texts is an exercise in futility, there is a reason why the church and state are supposed to be separate. . .

And as far as the “unique learning opportunity” goes, why don’t we just make a pre-req course for graduation called “forced to gawk at a bunch of homeless people on UW campus 101” and make the thing official.

link that works ( I hope):

http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Housing/...

Fiscally, this does not make sense. Libaries are being closed, programs are being cut (look at the swim teams, for example), and many more monetary issues have been creeping out of the woodwork. For right now, as our school is looking at a large budget deficit that it needs to make up with the increasing of tuition for the next few years (and no matter what they data says in the e-mails we have received from the school, a significant amount of us WILL actually have to pay in the increase out of pocket), superfluous projects seem illogical at best.

Charity work is incredible, helping the homeless is admirable. However these are things done by people by CHOICE! It is their CHOICE on whether or not they want to deal with the problems that may or may not come with interacting with the members of TC3. People also have a CHOICE of whether or not their tuition funds will go to support a project like TC3 when they do not, or if they want to interact with them at all. However, these freedoms are being revoked by placing this group in some of the many high traffic areas that have been proposed.

And although many say that ASUW is a representative of the student body, I believe it would be accurate to say that many students thoughts are not being represented at all. As an active member in UW clubs, student life and off campus events (no NOT greek), I am surprised that people like my self are being so under represented. We would like a say in our University of Washington experience.

Perhaps this is a good lessen in representative democracy...ASUW and GPSS have the authority to endorse things like TC3 because we, the students supposedly voted them into office. But I didn't vote...and though I remember a few signs, I don't remember any publicized debate or even a decent explanation of what these organizations' roles in the university are. They seem like excuses for a few students to pad their resumes while imposing their voice on the campus community.
There is no reason there couldn't be a direct voting mechanism for issues like this. Every student at UW has an email...we could all receive a weekly summary of issues and vote YES or NO on whether we support it. That would eliminate the self-selection bias of representatives and give a voice to every person affected. There is no need for these "representatives" - they are impediments to what should be a democratic process of decision-making. Let the issues be discussed in an open forum and let the people decide.