Homelessness in Seattle

[Liberty Sanders]

Yes indeedy...nothing like used needles and piles of poop on the sidewalk to make me want to spend my tourist dollars.

And I would point out (while readily conceding my superannuated status) that during my lawdog days we dealt with the "homelessness" (a word that had not yet been coined) issue via the boxcar method. It was uncomplicated, free and effective.

 

[Twangbanger]

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?

I think you are missing the point. The intent of the groups mentioned in the article is not to "solve" the problem. At least not as you and I define it. Their goal is to sustain these people as a permanent, accepted, parasitic component of the ecosystem. Numerical growth of the "problem" is not defined as a "problem" by these activists. If more homeless flock to the city, they see it as evidence that their "system" is "working."

They see them as a legitimate constituency to be served.

We define success as "reduction in the quantity of the problem."
The other side defines success as "quantity of people served."

Part of the reason I posted the article is that many from our viewpoint do not understand the underlying ideological conflict. We see homelessness as a problem to be eradicated. The other side sees it as an opportunity. We are arguing past each other. We do not understand that the definition of compassion being employed by the other side, does not mean the same thing as ours does. If we don't understand the fundamental difference in the way the term is defined, we'll continue to lose this argument. We see compassion as a good thing. We fail to see that compassion, in the modern sense of the term, is has actually morphed into something that needs to be defeated.

Because many on our side are good, church-going people who believe in compassion, they continue to fall for this trap. They fail to grasp that we've lost control over the meaning of the word compassion in our society.

 

[Mongo59]

You are right, I was missing the point. I don't think I have ever even looked at it this way. Thank you.

 

[Libertarian01]

I think you are missing the point. The intent of the groups mentioned in the article is not to "solve" the problem. At least not as you and I define it. Their goal is to sustain these people as a permanent, accepted, parasitic component of the ecosystem. Numerical growth of the "problem" is not defined as a "problem" by these activists. If more homeless flock to the city, they see it as evidence that their "system" is "working."

They see them as a legitimate constituency to be served.

We define success as "reduction in the quantity of the problem."
The other side defines success as "quantity of people served."

Part of the reason I posted the article is that many from our viewpoint do not understand the underlying ideological conflict. We see homelessness as a problem to be eradicated. The other side sees it as an opportunity. We are arguing past each other. We do not understand that the definition of compassion being employed by the other side, does not mean the same thing as ours does. If we don't understand the fundamental difference in the way the term is defined, we'll continue to lose this argument. We see compassion as a good thing. We fail to see that compassion, in the modern sense of the term, is has actually morphed into something that needs to be defeated.

Because many on our side are good, church-going people who believe in compassion, they continue to fall for this trap. They fail to grasp that we've lost control over the meaning of the word compassion in our society.

I think some of "them" do. Even in the article one of the olde school founders of DESC Elizabeth Owen said, "...It’s disgraceful,” she said. “When we started, we kept our costs low and helped people get back on their feet. Now the question is: How can I collect another city contract? How can I collect more Medicaid dollars? How can I collect more federal matching funds? It’s more important to keep the staff paid than to actually help the poor become self-sufficient.”

This is the problem with all organizations. Do they grow in a positive or negative direction? Just look at the NRA, May 21st, 1977. It was Harson Carter v/s Maxwell Rich. Was the NRA to continue on its trajectory of an outdoorsman/sportsmans group, or change direction 90 degrees into a force defending the 2A on ALL fronts? Today "we" are generally happy with the change in direction. Saying this it must be admitted that some truly gun loving hunters who had been members for decades were extremely unhappy.

I have seen the same thing occur at several nonprofits. Do you continue on the limited scope of your mission, or does mission creep and the desire for funding alter your course?

I would be surprised if the majority of the ground crew in many of these organizations are anything other than well meaning, good people just trying to help others. The problem exists that when they now join they are stepping into an organization that is chasing money with the cover of helping others rather than stepping into an organization that is out to help others while chasing money to do so. Both must be done, but the shift in focus is the root of corruption in my opinion.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug

 

[Lex Concord]

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

Population for Seattle vs. Seattle Metro (the region mentioned in the article) is 730k vs 3.8 million - the actual numbers may vary a bit, but it's clear Seattle proper makes up less than 25% of the referenced metro area. While the point is well taken that employees of Amazon (Seattle, WA), Boeing (Everett, WA), and Microsoft (Redmond, WA) surely have a strong influence on the cost of living, especially with respect to housing, it may not be quite lo large as the numbers you shared above would indicate.

Agreed that the market should be allowed to function, though it rarely is. San Francisco, is definitely suffering not just from affluenza, but the government intervention in housing prices via very strict rent controls and land development restrictions; I'm not familiar with the rules in Seattle and the metro.

As far as the homelessness is concerned, I'm guessing the availability of benefits attracts folks from outside the area.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yes indeedy...nothing like used needles and piles of poop on the sidewalk to make me want to spend my tourist dollars.

And I would point out (while readily conceding my superannuated status) that during my lawdog days we dealt with the "homelessness" (a word that had not yet been coined) issue via the boxcar method. It was uncomplicated, free and effective.

Forgive my naiveté, but are you saying you put them in (or encouraged them to get in) a railroad boxcar and move along?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Forgive my naiveté, but are you saying you put them in (or encouraged them to get in) a railroad boxcar and move along?

​It is quite possible.

 

[Ark]

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.

Mean =/= median. The median pay at Amazon is only $28k. Half their workforce make less than that.

The "average" is dragged upward by the spectacular salaries of a select few people at the top.

 

[Libertarian01]

Population for Seattle vs. Seattle Metro (the region mentioned in the article) is 730k vs 3.8 million - the actual numbers may vary a bit, but it's clear Seattle proper makes up less than 25% of the referenced metro area. While the point is well taken that employees of Amazon (Seattle, WA), Boeing (Everett, WA), and Microsoft (Redmond, WA) surely have a strong influence on the cost of living, especially with respect to housing, it may not be quite lo large as the numbers you shared above would indicate.

Agreed that the market should be allowed to function, though it rarely is. San Francisco, is definitely suffering not just from affluenza, but the government intervention in housing prices via very strict rent controls and land development restrictions; I'm not familiar with the rules in Seattle and the metro.

As far as the homelessness is concerned, I'm guessing the availability of benefits attracts folks from outside the area.

Mea culpa. I did a basic population search and, "oops." Still, I agree that there are many high paying companies in Seattle just like Silicon Valley that throw the numbers WAY out of whack, just not as bad as I thought.

Mean =/= median. The median pay at Amazon is only $28k. Half their workforce make less than that.

The "average" is dragged upward by the spectacular salaries of a select few people at the top.

As I may have been wrong in my Google search you are also way off as well. Amazon has a minimum pay rate now of $15/hour in all of the US. At $15/hour @ 40 hours / week = $600 / week @ 52 weeks / year = $31,200 / year minimum, not including health insurance and at least a 3% 401k match. It would be my guess, just a guess, that the lowest person on the totem pole at Amazon is going to get about $33k / year.

Even throwing in Jeff Bezos his salary is only $81,840. His net worth is huge, but salary? Practically a pittance in CEO land.

Throw in the fact that Amazon has closed their distribution center in Seattle and there goes a lot of the low paying jobs there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon is truly paying very close to $110k / year in the Seattle Metro area.

MEDIAN Salaries at Amazon: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Amazon-Seattle-Salaries-EI_IE6036.0,6_IL.7,14_IM781.htm

15$ Hour: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/6535...inimum-wage-for-u-s-employees-including-temps

Jeff Bezos: https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Amazon.com_Inc/Salary

Closed Seattle Distribution Center (see bottom of page above references): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...t,_warehousing_and_customer_service_locations
---------------

The reality is that along the west coast of the United States there are growing pockets of very well paid people that put pressure on the markets squeezing out affordable real estate. As more and more full time working class people are pushed onto the streets the normal is shifting, and not in a good way.

I believe in being tolerant of others, this includes those with mental illness and those with addiction behaviors. These are fellow travelers who are experiencing a low point in their lives. There is nothing immoral about that. But my tolerance does not equal support. Turning a really bad situation into just a bad situation is a good thing (ie. clean needles, free condoms, etc.) But we should never encourage activities that are destructive to the human condition. I don't necessarily see a problem with having a beer with a drunk, but you sure as hell don't buy it for him.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

[snip ...]

The reality is that along the west coast of the United States there are growing pockets of very well paid people that put pressure on the markets squeezing out affordable real estate. As more and more full time working class people are pushed onto the streets the normal is shifting, and not in a good way.

I believe in being tolerant of others, this includes those with mental illness and those with addiction behaviors. These are fellow travelers who are experiencing a low point in their lives. There is nothing immoral about that. But my tolerance does not equal support. Turning a really bad situation into just a bad situation is a good thing (ie. clean needles, free condoms, etc.) But we should never encourage activities that are destructive to the human condition. I don't necessarily see a problem with having a beer with a drunk, but you sure as hell don't buy it for him.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug

I'm not so sure about this, Lib01. I'm uncertain we can believably tell someone that their life choices lead inevitably to death (in this life or the next) if we then make those choices easier and/or safer for them

It seems a bit like warning a reckless driver about consequences and then installing a racing seat and a five-point harness in his/her car. We increase his/her chances of surviving the behavior, while doing nothing to mitigate the collateral damage

 

[Libertarian01]

I'm not so sure about this, Lib01. I'm uncertain we can believably tell someone that their life choices lead inevitably to death (in this life or the next) if we then make those choices easier and/or safer for them

It seems a bit like warning a reckless driver about consequences and then installing a racing seat and a five-point harness in his/her car. We increase his/her chances of surviving the behavior, while doing nothing to mitigate the collateral damage

I hear where you are coming from but consider - by ameliorating the bad we reduce the risk of harm, thus prolonging life and the quality thereof. By prolonging life we are giving them a greater opportunity to course correct.

Imagine if you were volunteering handing out clean needles to junkies. You don't just hand them out, you talk to them, offer them treatment options, let them know they are cared for AND have a reason to get clean. Same thing giving out condoms to prostitutes. You don't just give them away, you build a trust, offer them options, let them know there is a path back to a better life. So that when they do decide to get off of the street or out of "the life" then the likelihood of them carrying the baggage of AIDS or HEP C or some other burden on their backs is reduced.

We know today that WE can never convince a loved one to stop X (drinking, smoking, snorting, etc.) That motivation to quit must come internally. The addict must be the one to truly want to turn their life around!

And think of it this way as well. While we may be reducing the risk of damage to the bad behavior, we are also reducing the risk to everyone they interact with! By giving free condoms to prostitutes we protect them and their customers from STDs. By giving clean needles to junkies we reduce their risk and their friends (who may share) from becoming infected.

Where there is life there is hope. By extending life we extend hope. To my thinking this is a good thing.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug

 

[Twangbanger]

I hear where you are coming from but consider - by ameliorating the bad we reduce the risk of harm, thus prolonging life and the quality thereof. By prolonging life we are giving them a greater opportunity to course correct.Imagine if you were volunteering handing out clean needles to junkies. You don't just hand them out, you talk to them, offer them treatment options, let them know they are cared for AND have a reason to get clean. Same thing giving out condoms to prostitutes. You don't just give them away, you build a trust, offer them options, let them know there is a path back to a better life. So that when they do decide to get off of the street or out of "the life" then the likelihood of them carrying the baggage of AIDS or HEP C or some other burden on their backs is reduced.We know today that WE can never convince a loved one to stop X (drinking, smoking, snorting, etc.) That motivation to quit must come internally. The addict must be the one to truly want to turn their life around!And think of it this way as well. While we may be reducing the risk of damage to the bad behavior, we are also reducing the risk to everyone they interact with! By giving free condoms to prostitutes we protect them and their customers from STDs. By giving clean needles to junkies we reduce their risk and their friends (who may share) from becoming infected.Where there is life there is hope. By extending life we extend hope. To my thinking this is a good thing.Regards and Happy New Year,Doug

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Bug, on this one. I believe this country is way too far down the road of severing consequences from actions.

If you go back and read the original article, you're presented with examples of individuals haughtily _refusing_ available services of a more traditional nature (which I support and defend), because they don't want to mess with your damn rules, or have a damn "conversation" with you. They are emboldened by the availability of tremendous resources, coupled with a politically-empowering climate. They are _done_ with trying to "sucker" you along with your little church-talk game, with its wise-words and counsels. They choose to live life on their own, chosen, unproductive terms. And they want you, the taxpayer, to support it.

Then, if a productivity-minded individual tries to come along, put skin in the game, and run for council in the city where he lives, attempting to engineer one single, solitary council-seat worth of accountability and results into the governing picture, his family is threatened until he goes away. It sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.

And we are told cities like this are the "model" for our future.

I can admire your belief in the inherent value of every individual. I just do not share it. Personally, I believe "society" (because that's what government is mostly about) would be better off if the kinds of people referenced in the article were to rot away and die.
​

What I'm not sure you grasp, is that Seattle is trying to engineer a pathway around people like you. They're trying to make you utterly irrelevant, in the greater scheme, and replace you with something else more permissive and less constructive. You deserve kudos for your personal efforts, but as usual, you're making this all about you. For purposes of the issues being discussed in this thread topic, I say respectfully, I think you need to open your eyes. ​

 

[Libertarian01]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Bug, on this one. I believe this country is way too far down the road of severing consequences from actions.

If you go back and read the original article, you're presented with examples of individuals haughtily _refusing_ available services of a more traditional nature (which I support and defend), because they don't want to mess with your damn rules, or have a damn "conversation" with you. They are emboldened by the availability of tremendous resources, coupled with a politically-empowering climate. They are _done_ with trying to "sucker" you along with your little church-talk game, with its wise-words and counsels. They choose to live life on their own, chosen, unproductive terms. And they want you, the taxpayer, to support it.

Then, if a productivity-minded individual tries to come along, put skin in the game, and run for council in the city where he lives, attempting to engineer one single, solitary council-seat worth of accountability and results into the governing picture, his family is threatened until he goes away. It sounds like the inmates are running the asylum.

And we are told cities like this are the "model" for our future.

I can admire your belief in the inherent value of every individual. I just do not share it. Personally, I believe "society" (because that's what government is mostly about) would be better off if the kinds of people referenced in the article were to rot away and die.
​

What I'm not sure you grasp, is that Seattle is trying to engineer a pathway around people like you. They're trying to make you utterly irrelevant, in the greater scheme, and replace you with something else more permissive and less constructive. You deserve kudos for your personal efforts, but as usual, you're making this all about you. For purposes of the issues being discussed in this thread topic, I say respectfully, I think you need to open your eyes. ​

We aren't disagreeing that much. The nature of this form of communication limits our ability to interact to maximum efficiency.

I believe in individual responsibility. I believe in an extremely basic government safety net, stronger for those born with an affliction, weaker for those who chose an affliction.

I don't want governmental programs to exceed extremely basic safety nets. Going beyond this is fine with me, so long as the funds and effort are provided voluntarily through churches and other NGOs.

Society is important, but I try to remember that society is a collection of unique individuals, all capable of only so much physical, mental, and emotional strength.

I do have my eyes open, at least I think I do. There are those in Seattle who are perverting the desire to help with creating a system that is doomed to fail. I do not want such a system. I want an extremely basic safety net and nothing more. WE cannot get an addict to give up their addiction, only the addict can do that. We can offer them opportunity, but that opportunity should come with conditions and should not be foisted upon the private taxpayer beyond the most basic, and limited, level. By limiting this we encourage responsible behavior and discourage irresponsible behavior. What is happening in Seattle, and in other places, is a travesty of moral and ethical boundaries.

My only point in the response was to show how all things can become perverted and twisted over time. The original lady in charge of DESC was, or at least seems to be, reasonable. But over time her viewpoint became twisted and perverted into something grotesque and counterproductive. So it is with all organizations and governments, they are given a mandate and do not know where to stop and say, "ENOUGH!" In this way the problem isn't isolated to Seattle but to all organizations, everywhere.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Doug

 

[IndianaGlock85]

Portland is awful as well, I was there in September and was shocked and amount of homeless people.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm not so sure about this, Lib01. I'm uncertain we can believably tell someone that their life choices lead inevitably to death (in this life or the next) if we then make those choices easier and/or safer for them

It seems a bit like warning a reckless driver about consequences and then installing a racing seat and a five-point harness in his/her car. We increase his/her chances of surviving the behavior, while doing nothing to mitigate the collateral damage

True, but an insurance company can make a high risk rate buck off of the driver as the law says he has to have insurance to drive.

When you strip away all the piety, lots of folks have a job because of these people and a small group is getting rich.

Always follow the money

 

[bwframe]

Is Indy next?

THE DEMISE OF DOWNTOWN INDY

 

[Leadeye]

Is Indy next?

THE DEMISE OF DOWNTOWN INDY

I would imagine that Indy leadership will simply move these people to some less visible part of the city. They want down town to look tidy and safe so people will spend more money there.

 

[HKUSP]

I would imagine that Indy leadership will simply move these people to some less visible part of the city. They want down town to look tidy and safe so people will spend more money there.

I imagine our current leadership won't do jack diddly squat about it. I'm still waiting on all the street lights Mayor Stinkysneakers promised us.

What's anyone's educated guess for how many homeless people we have in Indy?

 

[IndianaGlock85]

I imagine our current leadership won't do jack diddly squat about it. I'm still waiting on all the street lights Mayor Stinkysneakers promised us.

What's anyone's educated guess for how many homeless people we have in Indy?

more than the number the media will report.

 

[DRob]

I worked IPD downtown districts, both walking and in a district car, for 10 years in the 80s. Most of those we considered homeless were homeless by choice. Nearly all of them had an income of some kind. SS benefits/disabilities or pensions of some kind. Some were on a military pension with a 4 figure monthly income. All of that number could have had a place to stay but they preferred the street or one of the shelters. As the weather got colder, some would pool their incomes and get a sleeping room for a few months but that was not the norm. Some would try to get arrested for public intoxication and hope for 90 days in jail. Some found or devised make-shift shelters which might be occupied by as many as a half dozen every night. Homelessness has a slightly different face today, I guess.