- desc.org/crisis_solutions_good_neighbor.html
- jpae.org/
- kingcounty.gov/healthservices/MHSA/MIDDPlan.aspx
- casa-latina.org/
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
14-Dec-11
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
An emergency treatment facility in Seattle, run by Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC), where people in psychiatric or drug-induced crises on the streets could be taken by first responders, was to save King County taxpayers the high costs of taking them to hospitals and jails. Most residents of the neighborhood where the facility was to be located came to accept the project, thanks to a months-long Good Neighbor process that concluded in a written agreement with DESC. A minority, refusing to participate in the good neighbor process, filed an opposing lawsuit. Delays in the opening the diversion center, which has already been fully funded by county taxpayers, is costing them an average of an additional $19,600/day (totaling about $1,372,000 between the date when the good neighbor agreement was reached and the date the article was published) — or an additional $7.2 million/year. “Seattle Process” in the title is a recurring theme of articles appearing in Crosscut.com; it refers to the unconscionably long time it takes for the city to dither and stall its way toward launching a project of any complexity.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Downtown Emergency Services Center – DESC.org; King County MIDD (Mental Illness and Drug Dependency) Plan – kingcounty.gov/healthservices/MHSA/MIDDPlan.aspx; Jackson Place Alliance for Equity – jpae.org; JPAE legal briefs.
Explain types of human sources used.
King County officials; human services staff; neighborhood residents
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
The attorney for the group that organized itself to file suit against the project, and the group itself, made it as difficult (practically and emotionally) as they could for me to make contact and get information. The attorney even telephoned my editors to complain about the quality of a voicemail I’d left him, and he managed to elude an interview in ways that prevented me from writing that he declined to comment. After the article appeared, the organization’s spokesperson wrote me and my editor to complain of two “blatant” and serious errors: (1) that she had not “said” to me (she had emailed me) words to the effect that the facility was being located in the wrong place, and (2) that the organization’s admonition to area residents not to join the Good Neighbor Process, which I wrote had disappeared from its web site, was still posted there. It’s not inconceivable that I failed to spot the passage when checking back while drafting the story, but I believe that it might have been removed after organization members knew the article was in progress, and then returned to the site after the article appeared. The two corrections were duly made and acknowledged (see editor’s note at the end).
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Take and file screen shots of source material from Web pages created by ad hoc groups. Don’t be thrown off by lawyers skilled at intimidating a journalist who tries to write about cases they’re involved with.