In its weekly e-mailed Action Alert dated today, The Church Council of Greater Seattle sounds the claxon on the King County Council's supposed consideration of neighbors' rights in the ongoing "Tent City" or homeless encampment controversy. The Church Council charges that the county body would be restricting religious freedom and violating the Constitution if it passed "restrictive new rules," contained in two allegedly pending ordinances affecting Tent Cities on unincorporated land in King County.

One would allow court appeals of county administrative decisions to issue temporary use permits (TUPs) for homeless encampments on property under county jurisdiction. Currently, appeals to hearing officers are the way to contest TUPs for Tent Cities on county-controlled land. And it will likely stay that way, if the Council does not approve Ordinance 2004-0519. That would also impose a public meeting notice requirement, and other site, size and duration restrictions on homeless encampments. All fairly reasonable stuff - long overdue and perhaps not even strong enough.

Another measure, 2004-0518, would declare a year's moratorium on use of county-owned land for homeless encampments.

But county-controlled land is not even where the roaming Tent City in suburban King County is located right now. It is lodged in a Kirkland church's parking lot for the time being, and may be headed for south Bellevue soon.

Nonetheless, the Church Council is up in arms. Following is their Action Alert text, which is separate from a related form letter (also in the Action Alert) that Church Council supporters are urged to "cut and paste" and send to King County Council members. (Notably, there is no trace whatsoever on the Church Council's Web site of the Action Alert agenda on homeless encampments, although you can sign up to recieve future Action Alerts.)

The Alert states:

The King County Council is preparing to vote on restrictive new rules for homeless encampments. These new rules would restrict the freedom of churches to exercise their religious beliefs by hosting encampments for homeless people. Restrictions on the practice of religious beliefs on church property such as this, attorneys for the (church) Council believe, are "patently unconstitutional."

With these unnecessary restrictions the King County Council is caving in to a small group of Eastside residents who want King County's homeless out of sight and out of mind. If we expect to solve homelessness in King County over the next 10 years, we'll need real solutions from our elected leaders, not restrictions based on exaggerated neighborhood fears.

The King County Council needs to hear the voice of the faith community on this issue. Please contact your County Councilmember to share your concerns about the legislation. You can find their contact information by using the link on the side. A sample letter is below. Please feel free to cut and paste the text.

A group called Eastside Cares adopts a more reasonable tone:

The proposed (county) laws have aroused opposition from church leaders, who see a threat to the free exercise of religion. Churches have historically provided sanctuary for the poor, and the proposed laws would place substantial burdens on churches' rights to use their property for that purpose.

The County Council is faced with balancing the rights of churches against the rights of neighbors to have input into what goes on in their neighborhood. Usually, a property owner who wants to put a "temporary use" on their property must go through a months-long application procedure that requires public notice and gives neighbors the opportunity to comment. In the case of Tent City, however, some churches are claiming a constitutional right to host an encampment with very little public notice or input.

It is understandable that residents of a neighborhood would be upset to see an emergency emcampment move onto nearby church property with only a few days notice.

Indeed. This is what happened recently in Kirkland, where the city, not the county, is in the middle of the dispute. (Tent City Solutions is following the action).

Though the Church Council's Action Alert refers only to proposed regulations for encampments on properties under county, not municipal, jurisdiction, the organization's rhetoric reveals a bias against property owners' rights in favor of a dubiously constructed "religious freedom" to ram home new Tent City locations on county-controlled land with little or no recourse for neighbors. How real is the Church Council's compassion for the homeless? I propose a permanent homeless encampment outside the Church Council's office. Oh. Wait. They're in the University District now, that living shrine to the efficacy of the clientized state. Make that "a larger permanent homeless encampment."

Maybe some cold-hearted social Darwinism is necessary. Tent City is a stop-gap. As usual, liberal government and non-profit actors define the problem as "lack of affordable housing." One recommended goal is formulation of a 10-year plan for eliminating homelessness. Fat chance. The free market is usually an efficient and fair enough beast, and certainly it is here.

Through lack of personal finances, and in some cases, grave personal failings, many homeless are not able to hack it in and around Seattle, where housing costs are admittedly steep. Maybe they need to shave, find some clean clothes, and hitch a ride to somewhere else in jobs-laden Washington state, where housing is cheaper and there's no social services Mafia whose continued employment depends on keeping them in limbo and in need, under the guise of "compassion."

UPDATE: News comes today from Ann Arbor showing that - like the extremist Church Council of Greater Seattle - churches around the nation, with land use gripes, are increasingly crying "Wolf" over religious freedom; pinning hopes on a highly questionable piece of federal legislation; and in this particularly ugly case, resorting to naked legal intimidation of neighborhood residents.