The city of Port Townsend has been leveled by a landslide of comments over the proposed site for Pat’s Place, a transitional housing village of 12 buildings planned for land at the junction of 10th and Rosecrans streets.

More than 260 comments were handed over to Lance Bailey, Port Townsend development services director, on the application by Bayside Housing and Services for the project.

The deadline for comments was Tuesday, Aug. 17, and an additional 20 emails were received after the deadline.

Bailey told The Leader that the comments had been forwarded to Bayside for response and clarification.

“I think there was some misunderstanding regarding the term ‘tent encampment,’” he said, referring to the language of city code.

Regardless, he emphasized that it’s the substance of the comments he’s most interested in, not people’s support or opposition to the proposed project.

“It’s not a vote,” he added.

While the majority of comments were in opposition to the project, according to a review of the submittals, supporters also added their voices to the city’s review of the permit application.

PAT’S PLACE, PLEASE

Trent Diamanti, who lives off of 14th Street, received an unattributed flyer urging folks to resist the proposal. He responded directly to the city, stating, “I am tired of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) chorus rising up every time privileged homeowners (of which I am one) feel any kind of threat and are asked to make a modest sacrifice for the greater good,” he wrote.

“On this issue, I wish to state resoundingly, YES in my backyard!”

Some in support of the application had some hesitations, and there were numerous requests for more information.

“I am a neighbor and do have some worries but know that homeless folk need help to break a downward spiral,” Diane Haas wrote to the city.

Regardless of her own reservations, she’d worked on the very project in question.

“I helped do some of the painting of the houses and am proud to be a part of a community that can work together to help others,” she added.

Dennis Kelly, a 40-year resident of Port Townsend, emailed his endorsement of the project.

“I strongly support the proposed shelter village project to create temporary housing for homeless and housing-challenged people in Port Townsend,” Kelly wrote. “The shelter village will add to the neighborhood, creating a vibrant, colorful development and stabilizing energy for PT residents, who want to stay here and contribute to our town.”

NOT IN MY BACKYARD

While many commenters realized the need for housing options, some were firmly opposed to the housing project.

“Building housing for the homeless will just attract more,”  Keith Emry said in an email. “Once they realize that we are building free housing for them they will flock to Port Townsend for the chance to live in one of them. The shelters are homeless magnets. Bad idea!”

Numerous other residents echoed Emery.

Jen Kopala wondered why, “In a town where the costs have grown, you’re taking care of the homeless better than the people who are trying to make a living and barely getting by?”

“Please stop making it easier to be homeless than it is to try and just get by,” she continued. “Stop trying to ruin our home by putting this in the neighborhood.”

Max Plattner, a 69-year resident, raised concerns about the potential environmental impact of the development.

“I will say I am totally against [the plan for the project],” he wrote.

“Anyone else applying for a building permit has to have an environmental impact review, why not this one? This permit should have a more and stricter review than any.”

“This is bad business totally,” Plattner added.

LOCATION, LOCATION

A contentious topic was the issue of the appropriateness of the location.

Shawna Bayati wrote: “I will continue to oppose this as long as necessary. I do not want this kind of community in my neighborhood and near my family.”

Doris Griffith was succinct in her disapproval.

“No homeless in our area,” she wrote.

Some folks felt it was perfect, like Dari Lewis.

“I fully support the project to bring in tiny homes for traditional homeless housing on block 199 of the Eisenbeis addition,” Lewis, who lives off of Sheridan Street, said in an email.

“This is an ideal location due to its proximity to medical and social services, bus lines and grocery stores. It’s a much better option than the folly of pushing the homeless out into the county where they’d be ‘out of sight out of mind.’”

Resident Ken Gentil, who lives directly adjacent to the site in question, agreed.

“I support the project 100 percent,” he wrote in a handwritten letter. “I intend to be part of building the next 10 tiny houses.”

Leah Layman felt differently.

“As someone who is hoping to start a family soon, I cannot think of a scarier thought than having an unwanted guest in the backyard or walking past an encampment alone with an infant in a stroller,” she said.

“We just bought a house [in the area],” an email signed by Karen Smith and Rick Thompson said.

“We will most likely sell our house if this even begins to get going,” the email continued. “Would have to sell before it won’t be sellable at all because of trash, drug use, and violence.”

Julia Nunn agreed.

“I am registering my extreme protest to the proposed dumping of homeless people in a residential neighborhood,” she wrote, arguing against placing the village in the Castle Hill neighborhood.

“What we do not have here is a problem-riddled homeless encampment, a gulag where you intend to dump off people being evicted finally from the fairgrounds,” she added. “Port Townsend is the wrong place for a homeless encampment.”

OTHER ALTERNATIVES

Included in the comments submitted to the city were suggestions for other sites for the temporary housing village of Pat’s Place.

“The idea of having a ‘tent city’ in/at Memorial Field would show ‘truly’ the care you feel for the homeless,”  Gary Garcia wrote on the outside of a letter submitted to the city. “The area is much larger and has bathrooms.”

Susan Rising, owner of Waste Not Want Not, suggested Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park.

“Lots of homeless people already live there,” she wrote in an email. “Everyone local already avoids that area for that reason.” 

She added that benefits of using the park included a distant proximity to residential neighborhoods, as well as being within walking distances of services.

Don and Margaret Logue submitted a joint statement: “We saw the homeless encampment at the fairgrounds while taking our grandson to Little League baseball.”

That area, they wrote, seemed to be  “a much better suited type of location.”

Resident Daryl Moglling was adamantly opposed to situating Pat’s Place in the proposed area.

“I seriously disagree with the location of this homeless encampment,” he wrote. “May I recommend the dog park up at the police department for a homeless encampment.”

“There is land outside of Port Townsend that could be developed,” added  Dorothy Schramck.

“Let this group help build their own housing — it would be helpful for them to take responsibility,” she noted.

NEXT STEPS

Before any action can be taken, comments are under review by Bayside, who will return a blanket statement containing any clarifications.

“There are some points that call for clarification,” Bailey said.

Bailey said he expected to reach a decision on the application by late September.

An appeal period will follow, and if the decision is appealed, it will go to a public hearing and potentially to county court.