Homelessness in Seattle

[Twangbanger]

Interesting. (Or maybe not)

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

I think it's interesting to watch cities having a clash between A) the accountability / results / law-and-order culture of business-oriented people, and B) the perpetual - sustainment culture of the benefits / compassion establishment.

Unlike the case with faraway federal policies, where citizens rarely have a choice, things in cities have to get done and fixed, or people will notice, and can easily vote with their feet.

Side note: if you search for bio info on the author, you find he was a candidate for Seattle City Council, but withdrew for fear of his family's safety under a barrage of threats and hate attacks from SJWs.

 

[Leadeye]

The homeless/industrial complex, seems like you find these sort of groups everywhere and for good reason.

Always follow the money

 

[Spear Dane]

$100k PER PERSON. Holy moly. No wonder people flock to Seattle. You could just stick people in apartments and cover their food and bills for half that or less.

 

[igotdiesel2]

That article was a fascinating read for sure. The bleeding hearts are killing our country. I understand compassion, but not to the point of ignoring other peoples rights. I really like to zero tolerance policies that other cities put into place.

Food for thought; what would happen if Amazon decided to leave Seattle? What kind of hurt would be on that city? What would "that" business be for Indianapolis? -Jason

 

[Phase2]

the Seattle metro area spends more than $1 billion fighting homelessness every year. That’s nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County, yet the crisis seems only to have deepened

How inefficient do you have to be to not be able to handle a person's homelessness for $100K/year? The average American's per capita income is less than half that ($48,150) in 2017.

 

[2Lucky]

Not to mention if you need new syringes to get high with the city will provide you with those to!

 

[Ark]

And, don't forget, Seattle is rapidly rolling back the productive population's right to defend themselves against the criminals and drug users who are flocking into the city.

I am not unsympathetic to the problem of homelessness, nor am I dismissive of the idea that corporate power and worsening inequality is a huge problem. But that's not really what's happening in Portland, Seattle, and California. Their homeless are mentally ill people who are unable to support themselves or behave well enough to get help, and people who don't want to work and would rather everyone else subsidize their lifestyle of drugs and crime. The latter travel to these cities because they know there is a political cohort of bleeding hearts and drug users who will shield them from any negative consequences and actively fight to get them more stuff.

The drug user wants two things: To continue using drugs, and to not be hassled for using drugs. As long as there is a differential in willingness to tolerate drug use and availability of services that facilitate continuing to use drugs, the drug users will flow like water to the places where it's easier to keep using drugs! I certainly see this on a smaller scale in Bloomington. These people all have phones. Word gets out where you should go for the good dope and where the cops won't hassle you. Some people are so far down the "harm reduction" rabbit hole that they can't even give you a straight answer on whether they think drug users should stop using drugs. They just blather on about how everything should be legal and how high-functioning most drug users supposedly are.

Seattle spends $100k per year per homeless person. San Francisco is somewhere around $40k. Everywhere this policy of lavish spending and tolerance for bad behavior has been enacted, drug users and criminals have swarmed to, to the massive detriment of the people who actually work and pay their bills. About the only negative effect it hasn't had is on cost of living. I feel for the people who have to live with that crap. Arguably the worst part is, it's not even good for the people who are homeless, unless your only definition of "good" is "permitted to continue ruining their own lives". Enabling someone's bad behavior isn't helping, it's hurting. They're setting fire to piles of money, hurting everyone, and helping nobody. All in the name of a vague progressive warm fuzzy.

 

[bgcatty]

And, don't forget, Seattle is rapidly rolling back the productive population's right to defend themselves against the criminals and drug users who are flocking into the city.

I am not unsympathetic to the problem of homelessness, nor am I dismissive of the idea that corporate power and worsening inequality is a huge problem. But that's not really what's happening in Portland, Seattle, and California. Their homeless are mentally ill people who are unable to support themselves or behave well enough to get help, and people who don't want to work and would rather everyone else subsidize their lifestyle of drugs and crime. The latter travel to these cities because they know there is a political cohort of bleeding hearts and drug users who will shield them from any negative consequences and actively fight to get them more stuff.

The drug user wants two things: To continue using drugs, and to not be hassled for using drugs. As long as there is a differential in willingness to tolerate drug use and availability of services that facilitate continuing to use drugs, the drug users will flow like water to the places where it's easier to keep using drugs! I certainly see this on a smaller scale in Bloomington. These people all have phones. Word gets out where you should go for the good dope and where the cops won't hassle you. Some people are so far down the "harm reduction" rabbit hole that they can't even give you a straight answer on whether they think drug users should stop using drugs. They just blather on about how everything should be legal and how high-functioning most drug users supposedly are.

Seattle spends $100k per year per homeless person. San Francisco is somewhere around $40k. Everywhere this policy of lavish spending and tolerance for bad behavior has been enacted, drug users and criminals have swarmed to, to the massive detriment of the people who actually work and pay their bills. About the only negative effect it hasn't had is on cost of living. I feel for the people who have to live with that crap. Arguably the worst part is, it's not even good for the people who are homeless, unless your only definition of "good" is "permitted to continue ruining their own lives". Enabling someone's bad behavior isn't helping, it's hurting. They're setting fire to piles of money, hurting everyone, and helping nobody. All in the name of a vague progressive warm fuzzy.

Ark-you hit the nail on the head!!! The problem is the libtards in Seattle and San Fran are so far down the liberal socialism Bravo Sierra that they don’t see reality. Once great cities and the America Baby Boomers helped build are falling into decay. We all must vote these idiots out and replace them with sane people who can correct the situation. I can only hope and pray that the current generation, the 20 something kids included, will see the light and do something positive.

 

[printcraft]

100 grand would buy a lot of heroin, I’m all for having open availability. Self correcting issues.
(Charles Darwin likes this)

 

[Leadeye]

I wouldn't feel bad if those cities were financing their programs by taxing their own citizens, but something tells me there's federal dollars in that mix.

 

[Nazgul]

Lived in Seattle for 5 years when in college, Univ. of Washington. Late 70's, it was not like this!

Remember it as far more conservative. Really liked it, glad I did not stay.

Miss the mountains, scuba diving, fresh sea food.

Don

 

[Mongo59]

Where did common sense go?

None of these people who initiate these programs did it with the intent of negatively impacting their city, but where are the checks and balances? When do you stop and evaluate if you are helping or enabling?

 

[eldirector]

100 grand would buy a lot of heroin, I’m all for having open availability. Self correcting issues.
(Charles Darwin likes this)

The idiots in Seattle would spend $10K on Heroin and the other $90K on Narcan. Lining their friend's pockets and perpetuating the [STRIKE]opportunity[/STRIKE] problem as long as possible.

 

[Phase2]

Where did common sense go?

None of these people who initiate these programs did it with the intent of negatively impacting their city, but where are the checks and balances? When do you stop and evaluate if you are helping or enabling?

There is an entire political ideology built on the idea that good intentions are all that is needed. Any results that fall short will be spun to fit the narrative.

 

[Ark]

Ark-you hit the nail on the head!!! The problem is the libtards in Seattle and San Fran are so far down the liberal socialism Bravo Sierra that they don’t see reality. Once great cities and the America Baby Boomers helped build are falling into decay. We all must vote these idiots out and replace them with sane people who can correct the situation. I can only hope and pray that the current generation, the 20 something kids included, will see the light and do something positive.

Hell, I believe in a lot of left-leaning stuff, too, but I dunno where along the line promoting and subsidizing this substance abuse underclass became a leftist tenant. Especially when the city governments are all failing at the singular underlying principle of socialism, which is that workers come first and workers keep the fruits of their labor. How does that translate to "tax workers to the gills, let cost of living skyrocket, let corporations stomp on worker's rights, and give all the monies to crooks who lay in the street getting high"? Seattle doesn't look like any leftist utopia that I was ever sold.

I almost think we need a new name for this ideology. It's not socialism, because it's to the detriment of workers. It's not left authoritarianism, because they don't ask or require one single thing of these people. It's not exactly left libertarianism, because they're so heavily subsidized. I don't know what to call it, except "dumb".

 

[Phase2]

workers keep the fruits of their labor.

Maybe I'm missing something big. When was that ever an underlying principle of socialism? That is a [STRIKE]tenant[/STRIKE] tenet of libertarianism.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Maybe I'm missing something big. When was that ever an underlying principle of socialism? That is a tenant of libertarianism.

Correct (but it's tenet ). "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is the underlying principal of socialism. In other words, if you're productive and do well for yourself, you need to give up some of your "fruits" to the ones that "need" it more than you do.

 

[MarkC]

Correct (but it's tenet ). "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is the underlying principal of socialism. In other words, if you're productive and do well for yourself, you need to give up some of your "fruits" to the ones that "need" it more than you do.

I read this article a couple of days ago, and it struck me as being on point. Unbridled compassion, without responsibility.

DoggyDaddy hit the nail on the head: You have to give up your "fair share" to those with "needs." The "fair share" is determined by our betters, benevolent overlords, who will have nothing but good intentions for all of us. Or so they believe.

 

[JettaKnight]

“The explosion of the homelessness crisis is a symptom of how deeply dysfunctional capitalism is and also how much worse living standards have gotten with the last several decades.”

Seattle may even eclipse SF in terms of being homeless friendly. Gentle climate, lots of handouts, very little hassle, plenty of drugs...

Of course, the rising housing prices there makes it really hard to quit being homeless.

 

[Libertarian01]

The core problem stems from the high pay at Amazon for it's employees? According to this brief search https://www.google.com/search?sourc...wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i22i30j33i299.gH1nDqa9Jc4

The average pay at amazon for 45,000 employees is $110,000 per year! That is almost $5 billion per year going into that economy. This allows every real estate developer and agent to easily push $500k homes, knowing that their darling little Amazonians will easily be able to afford it. This also allows rental property owners to massively jack up rental prices because again, they know the Amazonians will easily be able to afford it.

This process throws the normal economy completely out of whack. I am NOT knocking Amazon or what they pay. I am NOT knocking real estate developers or rental property owners for operating in a free market. It is simply the reality that has been created by large, well paying companies. Seattle also boasts Boeing (80,000 employees in Seattle alone) and Microsoft (42,000 employees). While these two (2) pay less than Amazon their pay is still very good.

Seattle only has a population of about 610,000. This is NOT working population, this is total population. So counting children, retirees, incarcerated, etc 27% are working at these three (3) companies alone. How does this skew cost of living in the area?

I remember reading a story about the homeless problem in California. A teacher for middle school was talking to her class about it when a young girl said something to the effect of, "The homeless are either lazy or drug addicts." The teacher got to respond, "But I'm homeless, and I'm not on drugs or lazy." The kids jaws dropped. The teacher is a full time teacher, with her husband being a full time police officer. Yet because they work and live near Silicon Valley they cannot afford housing. The reporter on the story (I'll try to find it later) looked up rental prices in two (2) areas. In the first the cheapest, bottom dollar rent was $3k / month. In the next area it was $3,800 / month. This is just rent. There are thousands of working homeless in these areas.

New York city might(?) not have the same problem due to their rent control. With rent control they may(?) be able to mitigate the impact of a massive influx. Of course New York city is also very large and the impact will be far less than in Seattle or Arlington. However, I'm certain real estate developers know tricks to get around rent control that are legal.

The free market system works when there is competition. However, it does have flaws when there is no competition. The drug Daraprim can be life saving and was available at $13.50 / pill. However, the company that manufactured it shot the price up to $750 / pill. Who cares if it will save your life, there is NO generic and you'll pay up, or not. The same goes for Revlimid, a treatment for meyloma. It went from $78k per year to $156k / year. Doesn't manufacturing costs go down over time?

In these areas there is also no competition when people want/need to live near work. When everyone decides to charge the maximum that the market can afford then there will be many who are simply priced out and forced to either live farther away OR out of an RV on the street.

I don't know that there is a solution I would be comfortable with. Companies pay good money, people flock to them. Locals take advantage of the influx to maximize profits. I don't want big brother interfering, but it would be nice if there was a degree of ethics in the market that didn't try to squeeze every damn dime out of everyone. Alas, methinks I ask too much.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug