Fair points. I’m one of those people that’s all about shelling out real money for nebulous benefits, but most people aren’t. It’s a matter of having some minimal trust in government, I guess.
At the same time, I also just super don’t want to get stabbed. I’m firmly anti-stabbing. So sometimes it’s hard to resist the siren’s call of the people who want to just crack down on the, for lack of a better term, “loudly homeless” even if they aren’t suggesting jack shit to help the bulk of people who could be much more easily helped. I say this as somebody who is generally very fiscally progressive, so obviously I get why a lot of other more selfish middle class people might fall for the Prison Island suggestion.
If some better management, treatment, and tracking will keep a guy from trying to throw me off an overpass, I’m one hundred percent for it. But while I know it makes me an asshole, if jail will accomplish the same and that’s the option of the two that a majority can be built on...
...I mean I just reallly don’t want to get thrown off an overpass.
That guy with the forty? I didn’t even call the cops. Not sure anybody did. Why bother? And that’s the problem, it’s at a point where people feel like there’s an elevated threat to their safety, and that there’s no real recourse until they’re avtuallly physically harmed. It’s a feeling of anarchy. Of a constant, low-level threat. One that goes wayyy beyond being asked for spare change. That’s the acute problem.
If the compassionate solution isn’t going to provide relatively rapid and visible improvement on that acute problem? Yeah, that’s a tough sell messaging wise.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
Last I checked I thought Seattle was growing stupidly fast. Really uneven but otherwise constant growth.
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
Every time I've been to Seattle and Tacoma there's certainly been homeless people but it's never felt as severe as out here in Baltimore and DC.
I don't ever see places like Union Gospel Mission out here. I'm sure they exist but they don't seem as central to the cities.
UGM is pretty central to the city, on second just north of the King Street station. They do good work
Last I checked I thought Seattle was growing stupidly fast. Really uneven but otherwise constant growth.
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
Every time I've been to Seattle and Tacoma there's certainly been homeless people but it's never felt as severe as out here in Baltimore and DC.
I don't ever see places like Union Gospel Mission out here. I'm sure they exist but they don't seem as central to the cities.
UGM is pretty central to the city, on second just north of the King Street station. They do good work
My brother worked/lived there as a teenager in the 80’s when he left the family. It was really cool to see for the first time as an adult.
I hear the stupid “why don’t they take a shower and get a job” take too much and the response that usually indicates to someone that they’re being a cruel dumbass is “yeah fuck those freeloading kids, old and disabled people, who are an incredibly significant portion of homeless people!”
My ideal solution is to tax the fuck out of all the rich companies that have offices here (and jack up the tax rates on condos that are valued at 500k+, which are more often commodities than residential vessels) and use that money to build public housing facilities and beef up social support programs.
And while I'm not like super opposed to that in general, I think you can legitimately question whether a municipal solution to a regional and national problem makes sense. I'll preface by saying that the bigger issue is that at a national level we suck even harder at dealing with the issue, and that's kinda the problem. But depending what numbers you look at and which you buy upwards of 15% or 20% of our homeless population isn't even from King County. Taxing businesses (and ultimately their employees) in Seattle to pay for Bellingham's or even Houston's problem is a tough sell. And if we are attracting that many migrant homeless now, when all we offer is a relatively hands-off treatment from the police, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that we might attract even more from beyond the region once we start spending the money to actually solve the problem. It's still a less ludicrous solution than Prison Island, obviously.
Did anyone mention the portion of homeless that are children
I think it's hard to talk about "the homeless" as a monolithic problem. You don't hear much about homeless children because homeless children are substantially less visible, and substantially less disruptive. I have a bit of experience with teenage homelessness, and have known some homeless families who bounced between car-camping and motel living (while at least one of the adults worked full-time, no less). While that sort of transient situation can definitely progress into worse situations, until it does I think for most people that's out of sight, out of mind. While that does mean that they aren't giving much thought about how to help people in those situations, it also means that when they talk about the more acute problems the homeless cause (and Prison Island as a solution) they probably aren't lumping children and families into it. At least not entirely.
These issues aren't completely separate, obviously. I'm not dumb, I know that these kinds of homeless are definitely interrelated. But the average person griping about "the homeless" probably is probably concerned far more with aggressive panhandling or visibly unstable and violent people on the street outside their office than they are with a family camping in a not-so-legally parked RV down in SoDo. Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think that the conversation about the latter could be far more civil and productive if we could do literally anything about the former.
Last I checked I thought Seattle was growing stupidly fast. Really uneven but otherwise constant growth.
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
Every time I've been to Seattle and Tacoma there's certainly been homeless people but it's never felt as severe as out here in Baltimore and DC.
I don't ever see places like Union Gospel Mission out here. I'm sure they exist but they don't seem as central to the cities.
I don't know how long it's been since you made it out, or if you just aren't hitting the parts of the city where it's most prominent, but yeah it's definitely pretty bad. In sheer numerical terms, it's not really a question; Seattle is behind only LA and NYC IIRC in terms of total homeless population, and when you start talking as a proportion of local population I'm pretty sure we're above DC as well. There are some specific corridors downtown that are high-profile enforcement areas, and anybody camping will be removed more or less immediately. There are huge portions even downtown though where you'll see tents take up whole blocks of sidewalk regularly (mostly toward the southern end, like Pioneer Square, and over by the waterfront...though viaduct removal seems to have shifted that). Then obviously there are larger encampments on undeveloped land in the city center and heading out into the less dense parts of the city.
My ideal solution is to tax the fuck out of all the rich companies that have offices here (and jack up the tax rates on condos that are valued at 500k+, which are more often commodities than residential vessels) and use that money to build public housing facilities and beef up social support programs.
And while I'm not like super opposed to that in general, I think you can legitimately question whether a municipal solution to a regional and national problem makes sense. I'll preface by saying that the bigger issue is that at a national level we suck even harder at dealing with the issue, and that's kinda the problem. But depending what numbers you look at and which you buy upwards of 15% or 20% of our homeless population isn't even from King County. Taxing businesses (and ultimately their employees) in Seattle to pay for Bellingham's or even Houston's problem is a tough sell. And if we are attracting that many migrant homeless now, when all we offer is a relatively hands-off treatment from the police, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that we might attract even more from beyond the region once we start spending the money to actually solve the problem. It's still a less ludicrous solution than Prison Island, obviously.
Did anyone mention the portion of homeless that are children
I think it's hard to talk about "the homeless" as a monolithic problem. You don't hear much about homeless children because homeless children are substantially less visible, and substantially less disruptive. I have a bit of experience with teenage homelessness, and have known some homeless families who bounced between car-camping and motel living (while at least one of the adults worked full-time, no less). While that sort of transient situation can definitely progress into worse situations, until it does I think for most people that's out of sight, out of mind. While that does mean that they aren't giving much thought about how to help people in those situations, it also means that when they talk about the more acute problems the homeless cause (and Prison Island as a solution) they probably aren't lumping children and families into it. At least not entirely.
These issues aren't completely separate, obviously. I'm not dumb, I know that these kinds of homeless are definitely interrelated. But the average person griping about "the homeless" probably is probably concerned far more with aggressive panhandling or visibly unstable and violent people on the street outside their office than they are with a family camping in a not-so-legally parked RV down in SoDo. Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think that the conversation about the latter could be far more civil and productive if we could do literally anything about the former.
I feel like we could start by talking about how it’s aggressive pan handling that makes people uncomfortable vs spouting off incredibly cruel and atrocious ideas without understanding what or who the fuck they’re taking about
This has nothing to do with you, btw
Ignorant comments about homelessness somehow became an irrational trigger of mine
Again nothing to do with you other than the points you’re raising providing an avenue for me to vent
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I feel like we could start by talking about how it’s aggressive pan handling that makes people uncomfortable vs spouting off incredibly cruel and atrocious ideas without understanding what or who the fuck they’re taking about
Oh, don't get me wrong, that's a great fuckin' point. The fact that I have more than once heard people, after seeing a homeless guy with a dog and a "hungry, anything helps" sign, say "if he's so hungry maybe he should eat the dog" has killed just a small part of my faith in humanity. Like the layers of utter ignorance that go into a statement like that are astonishing and horrifying to me, and the fact that anybody who would openly say such a thing in otherwise polite company is still somehow able to function and maintain a job in our society just proves that poverty and homelessness isn't necessarily (or even usually) due to a moral failing.
Because if moral failing led to homelessness, any asshole who says something like that would be the one holding the sign.
I didn't take what you said personally, and I hope I don't come off as too terribly callous, because I have personally experienced both poverty and homelessness. And it's a bit of a trigger point for me, too.
I will stop to say that aggressive panhandling doesn't just make people uncomfortable because they dislike poverty. It makes people uncomfortable because it makes them fear for their safety. I don't mind somebody asking me for change. I don't mind if they come up to me to ask me for change. I take a moment to acknowledge them, tell them I don't have any, and apologize for not helping. If they say god bless or good day, I say it back, and I mean it (well as much as an agnostic-leaning-toward-atheist can). This doesn't make me any kind of saint, I'm not saying this because I think it's impressive, but rather because it isn't...because all I'm saying is that I treat somebody asking me for change like a human being instead of some kind of nuisance to be ignored and tuned out. It is quite literally the least I can do.
When somebody takes that as a cue to follow me? To continue asking me, to try and argue with me about whether I have anything to give? Yeah, that's gonna make me uncomfortable. Because that's actual harassment, that's a huge deviation from social norms, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for somebody to take that deviation as a warning sign that some kind of further deviation may follow. Once somebody doesn't take "no" for an answer, is something I say next (or don't say next) next going to incite them to violence? I don't think that's an entirely irrational concern, maybe I'm wrong...I can definitely understand the desperation that could lead somebody to do it. But, it's yet another thing that nobody is going to bother to call the cops over nowadays, because absolutely nothing will happen. It's just something we accept. We have to hope that this person who is desperate or unstable enough to harass me over the change I don't even have in my pocket isn't unstable enough to escalate the situation further.
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I will say that reading my post I do realize that I’m falling into the same trap of stereotyping the homeless as violent, when (as I already noted) we’re talking about a small subset of the homeless who are particularly unstable, let alone violent.
I think it’s important to focus more on specific actions, rather than some status of homelessness. Aggressive panhandling wouldn’t suddenly be super comfortable if the guy doing it had an apartment. It’s the particular action/behavior that’s the issue, not the homelessness. And anytime enforcement is talked about as a solution, similarly, it should be in relation to a specific subset of harmful acts...not mere homelessness. I think that’s where the more conservative elements rearing their head fail.
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
Well, he's not lying.
He is, probably. The argument would change to well it looks like they are well put together, so what's the problem they must just be lazy.
+14
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
Well, he's not lying.
He is, probably. The argument would change to well it looks like they are well put together, so what's the problem they must just be lazy.
"If they can afford clean clothes and a haircut, what the hell are they doing on the street???"
I legit overheard one of my coworkers saying that they'd care more about the homeless if they weren't all so dirty, smelly, and ugly. Which, wtf lol okay???
Well, he's not lying.
He is, probably. The argument would change to well it looks like they are well put together, so what's the problem they must just be lazy.
It was a joke that his coworker would care more about the homeless if they weren't homeless.
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I'm not entirely convinced that affordable housing or affordable health care is the main driver for homelessness. Now I will be the first to admit I haven't looked much into research of this area, but some portion of the homeless population is going to be unwilling or unable to either support themselves at some point in the future or to maintain a living space. Suppose you build free or near free housing with access to healthcare, and the first thing the homeless who move in do is tear out anything worth value to sell for drugs, and then instantly start ruining the living space through neglect or accidents that are not cleaned up due to lack of finances or caring.
I'm not trying to paint all homeless with the same brush, but those that do have more extensive issues will be a massive drain on the upkeep for the low/free rent housing. I couldn't tell you what portion of the homeless population that would be true for, but the pessimist in me things it might be the majority, and even the optimist in me realizes that even if it is in the low percents those few individuals can still do a lot of damage, significantly increasing the cost of supporting these programs.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I'm not entirely convinced that affordable housing or affordable health care is the main driver for homelessness. Now I will be the first to admit I haven't looked much into research of this area, but some portion of the homeless population is going to be unwilling or unable to either support themselves at some point in the future or to maintain a living space. Suppose you build free or near free housing with access to healthcare, and the first thing the homeless who move in do is tear out anything worth value to sell for drugs, and then instantly start ruining the living space through neglect or accidents that are not cleaned up due to lack of finances or caring.
I'm not trying to paint all homeless with the same brush, but those that do have more extensive issues will be a massive drain on the upkeep for the low/free rent housing. I couldn't tell you what portion of the homeless population that would be true for, but the pessimist in me things it might be the majority, and even the optimist in me realizes that even if it is in the low percents those few individuals can still do a lot of damage, significantly increasing the cost of supporting these programs.
So you have no idea how many of the homeless have significant drug issues that can't be solved with proper medical care, but you are confident it's enough that they'll ruin any care you try to give to the entirety of the population.
Do you not see how completely fucked this statement is?
Even ignoring the fact that drug problems almost never exist in isolation from other significant problems, including existing mental health issues, existing medical issues, and being homeless.
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I'm not entirely convinced that affordable housing or affordable health care is the main driver for homelessness. Now I will be the first to admit I haven't looked much into research of this area, but some portion of the homeless population is going to be unwilling or unable to either support themselves at some point in the future or to maintain a living space. Suppose you build free or near free housing with access to healthcare, and the first thing the homeless who move in do is tear out anything worth value to sell for drugs, and then instantly start ruining the living space through neglect or accidents that are not cleaned up due to lack of finances or caring.
I'm not trying to paint all homeless with the same brush, but those that do have more extensive issues will be a massive drain on the upkeep for the low/free rent housing. I couldn't tell you what portion of the homeless population that would be true for, but the pessimist in me things it might be the majority, and even the optimist in me realizes that even if it is in the low percents those few individuals can still do a lot of damage, significantly increasing the cost of supporting these programs.
The disruption of the homeless can be sourced, partially, to the dispair many of them feel regarding their living situation and potential future prospects. While we probably can't do anything to solve the national crisis of homelessness without restructuring the nature of our political, social, and economy policies on a macro level, we can at least tax the fuck out of the local rich and use it to make affordable housing solutions for vulnerable populations located within the city. Throwing our hands up and saying "How can one city possibly solve this national crisis!" is the same way policy changes that help us combat global warming don't get enacted.
I'm not entirely convinced that affordable housing or affordable health care is the main driver for homelessness. Now I will be the first to admit I haven't looked much into research of this area, but some portion of the homeless population is going to be unwilling or unable to either support themselves at some point in the future or to maintain a living space. Suppose you build free or near free housing with access to healthcare, and the first thing the homeless who move in do is tear out anything worth value to sell for drugs, and then instantly start ruining the living space through neglect or accidents that are not cleaned up due to lack of finances or caring.
I'm not trying to paint all homeless with the same brush, but those that do have more extensive issues will be a massive drain on the upkeep for the low/free rent housing. I couldn't tell you what portion of the homeless population that would be true for, but the pessimist in me things it might be the majority, and even the optimist in me realizes that even if it is in the low percents those few individuals can still do a lot of damage, significantly increasing the cost of supporting these programs.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Yeah it's weird that when you give someone shelter and a place to actually have permanent belongings and stuff that they don't just go sleep in a doorway.
It's really weird. Like it's so weird that people stop being homeless when they are given a home!
Yeah it's weird that when you give someone shelter and a place to actually have permanent belongings and stuff that they don't just go sleep in a doorway.
It's really weird. Like it's so weird that people stop being homeless when they are given a home!
There’s definitely a subset who won’t be helped by this, and who may cause damage (and expense) but yeah people really overestimate that portion. Even when talking about the mentally unstable element earlier, giving somebody a place to stash their stuff makes treatment and such a fuck load easier. Losing a place to keep your things is the start of a real downward spiral, speaking from experience.
And that’s the other issue, is that even if you don’t believe that you can help the most visible and unstable people you see, providing easy access to housing can help the people you don’t see. The people camping in cars, couch surfing, squatting, etc. You can get them transitioned back into real housing, help them find actual work, etc. before their situation gets worse.
That’s why even ensuring the housed poor have affordable and stable options is important. Because most people aren’t born homeless. You just get into a situation where your lease expires, or you can’t make rent, and then you’re in your car “just for a little while,” and then things can just go to shit. Again, speaking from experience. I managed to escape that situation before it got worse. Not everybody does.
But people are so worried that all the homeless won’t or can’t be helped that they don’t want to spend what it costs to try. If 10% can’t be helped, and 90% can, seems like we could just *do* it and then deal with whoever is left through whatever other means necessary.
Does seem like in the meantime the city could at least enforce *some* behavior-based (rather than status-based) limitations. Blocking public thoroughfares with your belongings isn’t acceptable. Aggressive panhandling isn’t acceptable. Legitimately disturbing the peace isn’t acceptable. That shit needs to get stopped. Quietly camping off to the side of said thoroughfare and asking for money while being visibly poor is perfectly acceptable (to do, not that it happens). The former are the failing of the individual doing those things. The latter is *our* failing as a society for allowing that to be a thing.
If we just hand people homes and then some of them still wind up homeless as a worst case scenario that's still miles ahead of where we're at now.
Yeah I mean once we try Free Houses for All and are left with some subset who fall through the cracks, maybe we can talk about Literal Prison Island for whoever is left. Maybe. But of course asshole capitalism means we can’t try FHFA first, because reasons. Even in a super liberal city like Seattle.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I miss having Narwhal's perspective to call in for this, but IIRC his point was often that a lot of these people have serious mental health issues, not necessarily being crazy, but just their brain doesn't operate in a way that allows them to be a "functioning member of society" (as defined by our BS puritanical values), and so Housing First coupled with a better functioning medical system goes a long way.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The more I live here the less I think of Seattle as liberal. It's a city that feels like it is happy to have the tag but hates the actual idea of liberalism.
The biggest issue with prisons is that we don't have any spare prisons. So if we were going to build one why not just build like... regular housing that is a whole lot cheaper. Even if you want to force people to go to the houses... you still gotta build it so there is no reason to build a prison. At that point its just housing.
The other problem with a prison island is that the idea of "prison for homeless" is not to incarcerate them but that its (relatively)* cheap and orderly housing. But if you cannot leave at all in order to like... get a job... then you cannot ever exit homelessness. And you cannot leave to get a job on a prison island. And while i am sure that some homeless may decide that living in a prison full time is better than being on the street and not bother to look for a job, i doubt that would be anything but a small minority.
*Supposing that you had a spare building to use. Its not actually cheap but if you start to add up support services for the most indigent of homeless it probably comes out competitive to the less restrictive options, again supposing you did not have to build the prison.
Fair points. I’m one of those people that’s all about shelling out real money for nebulous benefits, but most people aren’t. It’s a matter of having some minimal trust in government, I guess.
At the same time, I also just super don’t want to get stabbed. I’m firmly anti-stabbing. So sometimes it’s hard to resist the siren’s call of the people who want to just crack down on the, for lack of a better term, “loudly homeless” even if they aren’t suggesting jack shit to help the bulk of people who could be much more easily helped. I say this as somebody who is generally very fiscally progressive, so obviously I get why a lot of other more selfish middle class people might fall for the Prison Island suggestion.
If some better management, treatment, and tracking will keep a guy from trying to throw me off an overpass, I’m one hundred percent for it. But while I know it makes me an asshole, if jail will accomplish the same and that’s the option of the two that a majority can be built on...
...I mean I just reallly don’t want to get thrown off an overpass.
That guy with the forty? I didn’t even call the cops. Not sure anybody did. Why bother? And that’s the problem, it’s at a point where people feel like there’s an elevated threat to their safety, and that there’s no real recourse until they’re avtuallly physically harmed. It’s a feeling of anarchy. Of a constant, low-level threat. One that goes wayyy beyond being asked for spare change. That’s the acute problem.
If the compassionate solution isn’t going to provide relatively rapid and visible improvement on that acute problem? Yeah, that’s a tough sell messaging wise.
My response:
* Getting "loudly homeless" people their meds and a place where they can sleep will cut their numbers. A week without good sleep and most people will go a bit "off", let alone people who need medications they aren't getting.
* Remember that they don't need to be recovered enough to reenter society in order to solve the issue, just recovered enough to have their arguments with the air inside their home instead of Main Street.
* By significantly reducing the number of homeless people, the police will actually have time to properly deal with any problematic homeless people.
The constant, low-level threat is because while most homeless people aren't That One Guy, they might be, and there's a lot of them. The reason nobody bothers to call the cops on harassment is because there's too much harassment, so the most this incident will get is a cop coming by to tell them to knock it off. You make it so there's 100 homeless people in the city instead of 10,000, and these things change.
The more I live here the less I think of Seattle as liberal. It's a city that feels like it is happy to have the tag but hates the actual idea of liberalism.
Its like a lot of places. Lefist youth and under class, psueo-liberal upper class, and the same dead-eyed greed at the top.
The point of most of these homeless "solutions" is not to solve the problem. It's to make it so the complainer doesn't have to see it. That's why you get "solutions" that are mostly cruelty with no thinking about whether it actually helps or just makes things worse.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The more I live here the less I think of Seattle as liberal. It's a city that feels like it is happy to have the tag but hates the actual idea of liberalism.
Its like a lot of places. Lefist youth and under class, psueo-liberal upper class, and the same dead-eyed greed Lex Luthor at the top.
ftfy
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Coexist stickers and "hate has no place here" yard signs in the front lawn of people who will displace homeless camps and vote for fewer taxes without blinking.
Eh lets not get into a circle jerk of "no true liberals" Washington state has plenty of liberal policies, we also have stupidly stubborn anti tax beliefs that coincide with "fuck you I got mine" when it comes to helping the homeless.
But the state is not conservative because of some shitty ideas.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The biggest issue with prisons is that we don't have any spare prisons. So if we were going to build one why not just build like... regular housing that is a whole lot cheaper. Even if you want to force people to go to the houses... you still gotta build it so there is no reason to build a prison. At that point its just housing.
The other problem with a prison island is that the idea of "prison for homeless" is not to incarcerate them but that its (relatively)* cheap and orderly housing. But if you cannot leave at all in order to like... get a job... then you cannot ever exit homelessness. And you cannot leave to get a job on a prison island. And while i am sure that some homeless may decide that living in a prison full time is better than being on the street and not bother to look for a job, i doubt that would be anything but a small minority.
*Supposing that you had a spare building to use. Its not actually cheap but if you start to add up support services for the most indigent of homeless it probably comes out competitive to the less restrictive options, again supposing you did not have to build the prison.
If we actually want suburbia to oppose prison for homeless people, this is probably the button to push. Point out that once we imprison all homeless people, they don't have any way to return to society, and no way to get a job. So, we'll be stuck supporting them with Your Tax Dollars.
While Housing First also gets them out of your way, but makes it much easier for them to get a job and rejoin society, and stop spending Your Tax Dollars.
Good point on the similarity between Housing (in a prison) First and Housing First.
Eh lets not get into a circle jerk of "no true liberals" Washington state has plenty of liberal policies, we also have stupidly stubborn anti tax beliefs that coincide with "fuck you I got mine" when it comes to helping the homeless.
But the state is not conservative because of some shitty ideas.
I think equating conservative with shitty is a mistake. Shitty can stand alone and apart.
The more I live here the less I think of Seattle as liberal. It's a city that feels like it is happy to have the tag but hates the actual idea of liberalism.
Its like a lot of places. Lefist youth and under class, psueo-liberal upper class, and the same dead-eyed greed at the top.
Don't sell yourselves short up there. The dead-eyed greed at the top is top tier.
The biggest issue with prisons is that we don't have any spare prisons. So if we were going to build one why not just build like... regular housing that is a whole lot cheaper. Even if you want to force people to go to the houses... you still gotta build it so there is no reason to build a prison. At that point its just housing.
The other problem with a prison island is that the idea of "prison for homeless" is not to incarcerate them but that its (relatively)* cheap and orderly housing. But if you cannot leave at all in order to like... get a job... then you cannot ever exit homelessness. And you cannot leave to get a job on a prison island. And while i am sure that some homeless may decide that living in a prison full time is better than being on the street and not bother to look for a job, i doubt that would be anything but a small minority.
*Supposing that you had a spare building to use. Its not actually cheap but if you start to add up support services for the most indigent of homeless it probably comes out competitive to the less restrictive options, again supposing you did not have to build the prison.
I think part of the reason Literal Prison Island resonates is that too many people see the X people who are visibly unstable and on the street (where I suspect X may be like a thousand), and extrapolate that out to the 12K or 14K number total, and think it's the only solution. When obviously it's neither the only option nor the right one, and the bulk of those 12K or 14K are just, like, quietly poor.
A significant portion have substantial enough drug or mental issues that some kind of involuntary confinement will likely be necessary for some amount of time. Obviously the best option is some sort of therapeutic environment, not jail/prison. But the involuntary aspect does mean it's going to be more expensive than plain old housing, because security costs money. It needn't be on an island, though, because as you note that's just gonna make transitioning into "polite society" that much harder.
Posts
At the same time, I also just super don’t want to get stabbed. I’m firmly anti-stabbing. So sometimes it’s hard to resist the siren’s call of the people who want to just crack down on the, for lack of a better term, “loudly homeless” even if they aren’t suggesting jack shit to help the bulk of people who could be much more easily helped. I say this as somebody who is generally very fiscally progressive, so obviously I get why a lot of other more selfish middle class people might fall for the Prison Island suggestion.
If some better management, treatment, and tracking will keep a guy from trying to throw me off an overpass, I’m one hundred percent for it. But while I know it makes me an asshole, if jail will accomplish the same and that’s the option of the two that a majority can be built on...
...I mean I just reallly don’t want to get thrown off an overpass.
That guy with the forty? I didn’t even call the cops. Not sure anybody did. Why bother? And that’s the problem, it’s at a point where people feel like there’s an elevated threat to their safety, and that there’s no real recourse until they’re avtuallly physically harmed. It’s a feeling of anarchy. Of a constant, low-level threat. One that goes wayyy beyond being asked for spare change. That’s the acute problem.
If the compassionate solution isn’t going to provide relatively rapid and visible improvement on that acute problem? Yeah, that’s a tough sell messaging wise.
UGM is pretty central to the city, on second just north of the King Street station. They do good work
My brother worked/lived there as a teenager in the 80’s when he left the family. It was really cool to see for the first time as an adult.
The rich didn't care about adolescent urchins during the Victorian era. Nothing's really changed since then, except smartphones and fashion.
EDIT: And a lower rate of STIs across the aristocrat class.
Let’s give them Mercer Island.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And while I'm not like super opposed to that in general, I think you can legitimately question whether a municipal solution to a regional and national problem makes sense. I'll preface by saying that the bigger issue is that at a national level we suck even harder at dealing with the issue, and that's kinda the problem. But depending what numbers you look at and which you buy upwards of 15% or 20% of our homeless population isn't even from King County. Taxing businesses (and ultimately their employees) in Seattle to pay for Bellingham's or even Houston's problem is a tough sell. And if we are attracting that many migrant homeless now, when all we offer is a relatively hands-off treatment from the police, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that we might attract even more from beyond the region once we start spending the money to actually solve the problem. It's still a less ludicrous solution than Prison Island, obviously.
I think it's hard to talk about "the homeless" as a monolithic problem. You don't hear much about homeless children because homeless children are substantially less visible, and substantially less disruptive. I have a bit of experience with teenage homelessness, and have known some homeless families who bounced between car-camping and motel living (while at least one of the adults worked full-time, no less). While that sort of transient situation can definitely progress into worse situations, until it does I think for most people that's out of sight, out of mind. While that does mean that they aren't giving much thought about how to help people in those situations, it also means that when they talk about the more acute problems the homeless cause (and Prison Island as a solution) they probably aren't lumping children and families into it. At least not entirely.
These issues aren't completely separate, obviously. I'm not dumb, I know that these kinds of homeless are definitely interrelated. But the average person griping about "the homeless" probably is probably concerned far more with aggressive panhandling or visibly unstable and violent people on the street outside their office than they are with a family camping in a not-so-legally parked RV down in SoDo. Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think that the conversation about the latter could be far more civil and productive if we could do literally anything about the former.
I don't know how long it's been since you made it out, or if you just aren't hitting the parts of the city where it's most prominent, but yeah it's definitely pretty bad. In sheer numerical terms, it's not really a question; Seattle is behind only LA and NYC IIRC in terms of total homeless population, and when you start talking as a proportion of local population I'm pretty sure we're above DC as well. There are some specific corridors downtown that are high-profile enforcement areas, and anybody camping will be removed more or less immediately. There are huge portions even downtown though where you'll see tents take up whole blocks of sidewalk regularly (mostly toward the southern end, like Pioneer Square, and over by the waterfront...though viaduct removal seems to have shifted that). Then obviously there are larger encampments on undeveloped land in the city center and heading out into the less dense parts of the city.
I feel like we could start by talking about how it’s aggressive pan handling that makes people uncomfortable vs spouting off incredibly cruel and atrocious ideas without understanding what or who the fuck they’re taking about
This has nothing to do with you, btw
Ignorant comments about homelessness somehow became an irrational trigger of mine
Again nothing to do with you other than the points you’re raising providing an avenue for me to vent
Oh, don't get me wrong, that's a great fuckin' point. The fact that I have more than once heard people, after seeing a homeless guy with a dog and a "hungry, anything helps" sign, say "if he's so hungry maybe he should eat the dog" has killed just a small part of my faith in humanity. Like the layers of utter ignorance that go into a statement like that are astonishing and horrifying to me, and the fact that anybody who would openly say such a thing in otherwise polite company is still somehow able to function and maintain a job in our society just proves that poverty and homelessness isn't necessarily (or even usually) due to a moral failing.
Because if moral failing led to homelessness, any asshole who says something like that would be the one holding the sign.
I didn't take what you said personally, and I hope I don't come off as too terribly callous, because I have personally experienced both poverty and homelessness. And it's a bit of a trigger point for me, too.
I will stop to say that aggressive panhandling doesn't just make people uncomfortable because they dislike poverty. It makes people uncomfortable because it makes them fear for their safety. I don't mind somebody asking me for change. I don't mind if they come up to me to ask me for change. I take a moment to acknowledge them, tell them I don't have any, and apologize for not helping. If they say god bless or good day, I say it back, and I mean it (well as much as an agnostic-leaning-toward-atheist can). This doesn't make me any kind of saint, I'm not saying this because I think it's impressive, but rather because it isn't...because all I'm saying is that I treat somebody asking me for change like a human being instead of some kind of nuisance to be ignored and tuned out. It is quite literally the least I can do.
When somebody takes that as a cue to follow me? To continue asking me, to try and argue with me about whether I have anything to give? Yeah, that's gonna make me uncomfortable. Because that's actual harassment, that's a huge deviation from social norms, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for somebody to take that deviation as a warning sign that some kind of further deviation may follow. Once somebody doesn't take "no" for an answer, is something I say next (or don't say next) next going to incite them to violence? I don't think that's an entirely irrational concern, maybe I'm wrong...I can definitely understand the desperation that could lead somebody to do it. But, it's yet another thing that nobody is going to bother to call the cops over nowadays, because absolutely nothing will happen. It's just something we accept. We have to hope that this person who is desperate or unstable enough to harass me over the change I don't even have in my pocket isn't unstable enough to escalate the situation further.
Good point and I appreciate the analogy.
I think it’s important to focus more on specific actions, rather than some status of homelessness. Aggressive panhandling wouldn’t suddenly be super comfortable if the guy doing it had an apartment. It’s the particular action/behavior that’s the issue, not the homelessness. And anytime enforcement is talked about as a solution, similarly, it should be in relation to a specific subset of harmful acts...not mere homelessness. I think that’s where the more conservative elements rearing their head fail.
Well, he's not lying.
Well, he's not lying.
He is, probably. The argument would change to well it looks like they are well put together, so what's the problem they must just be lazy.
"If they can afford clean clothes and a haircut, what the hell are they doing on the street???"
It was a joke that his coworker would care more about the homeless if they weren't homeless.
I'm not entirely convinced that affordable housing or affordable health care is the main driver for homelessness. Now I will be the first to admit I haven't looked much into research of this area, but some portion of the homeless population is going to be unwilling or unable to either support themselves at some point in the future or to maintain a living space. Suppose you build free or near free housing with access to healthcare, and the first thing the homeless who move in do is tear out anything worth value to sell for drugs, and then instantly start ruining the living space through neglect or accidents that are not cleaned up due to lack of finances or caring.
I'm not trying to paint all homeless with the same brush, but those that do have more extensive issues will be a massive drain on the upkeep for the low/free rent housing. I couldn't tell you what portion of the homeless population that would be true for, but the pessimist in me things it might be the majority, and even the optimist in me realizes that even if it is in the low percents those few individuals can still do a lot of damage, significantly increasing the cost of supporting these programs.
So you have no idea how many of the homeless have significant drug issues that can't be solved with proper medical care, but you are confident it's enough that they'll ruin any care you try to give to the entirety of the population.
Do you not see how completely fucked this statement is?
Even ignoring the fact that drug problems almost never exist in isolation from other significant problems, including existing mental health issues, existing medical issues, and being homeless.
Because it's been done, and it works.
Huge fan of just doing a thing
It's really weird. Like it's so weird that people stop being homeless when they are given a home!
There’s definitely a subset who won’t be helped by this, and who may cause damage (and expense) but yeah people really overestimate that portion. Even when talking about the mentally unstable element earlier, giving somebody a place to stash their stuff makes treatment and such a fuck load easier. Losing a place to keep your things is the start of a real downward spiral, speaking from experience.
And that’s the other issue, is that even if you don’t believe that you can help the most visible and unstable people you see, providing easy access to housing can help the people you don’t see. The people camping in cars, couch surfing, squatting, etc. You can get them transitioned back into real housing, help them find actual work, etc. before their situation gets worse.
That’s why even ensuring the housed poor have affordable and stable options is important. Because most people aren’t born homeless. You just get into a situation where your lease expires, or you can’t make rent, and then you’re in your car “just for a little while,” and then things can just go to shit. Again, speaking from experience. I managed to escape that situation before it got worse. Not everybody does.
But people are so worried that all the homeless won’t or can’t be helped that they don’t want to spend what it costs to try. If 10% can’t be helped, and 90% can, seems like we could just *do* it and then deal with whoever is left through whatever other means necessary.
Does seem like in the meantime the city could at least enforce *some* behavior-based (rather than status-based) limitations. Blocking public thoroughfares with your belongings isn’t acceptable. Aggressive panhandling isn’t acceptable. Legitimately disturbing the peace isn’t acceptable. That shit needs to get stopped. Quietly camping off to the side of said thoroughfare and asking for money while being visibly poor is perfectly acceptable (to do, not that it happens). The former are the failing of the individual doing those things. The latter is *our* failing as a society for allowing that to be a thing.
Yeah I mean once we try Free Houses for All and are left with some subset who fall through the cracks, maybe we can talk about Literal Prison Island for whoever is left. Maybe. But of course asshole capitalism means we can’t try FHFA first, because reasons. Even in a super liberal city like Seattle.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
The other problem with a prison island is that the idea of "prison for homeless" is not to incarcerate them but that its (relatively)* cheap and orderly housing. But if you cannot leave at all in order to like... get a job... then you cannot ever exit homelessness. And you cannot leave to get a job on a prison island. And while i am sure that some homeless may decide that living in a prison full time is better than being on the street and not bother to look for a job, i doubt that would be anything but a small minority.
*Supposing that you had a spare building to use. Its not actually cheap but if you start to add up support services for the most indigent of homeless it probably comes out competitive to the less restrictive options, again supposing you did not have to build the prison.
My response:
* Getting "loudly homeless" people their meds and a place where they can sleep will cut their numbers. A week without good sleep and most people will go a bit "off", let alone people who need medications they aren't getting.
* Remember that they don't need to be recovered enough to reenter society in order to solve the issue, just recovered enough to have their arguments with the air inside their home instead of Main Street.
* By significantly reducing the number of homeless people, the police will actually have time to properly deal with any problematic homeless people.
The constant, low-level threat is because while most homeless people aren't That One Guy, they might be, and there's a lot of them. The reason nobody bothers to call the cops on harassment is because there's too much harassment, so the most this incident will get is a cop coming by to tell them to knock it off. You make it so there's 100 homeless people in the city instead of 10,000, and these things change.
Its like a lot of places. Lefist youth and under class, psueo-liberal upper class, and the same dead-eyed greed at the top.
ftfy
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
But the state is not conservative because of some shitty ideas.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If we actually want suburbia to oppose prison for homeless people, this is probably the button to push. Point out that once we imprison all homeless people, they don't have any way to return to society, and no way to get a job. So, we'll be stuck supporting them with Your Tax Dollars.
While Housing First also gets them out of your way, but makes it much easier for them to get a job and rejoin society, and stop spending Your Tax Dollars.
Good point on the similarity between Housing (in a prison) First and Housing First.
I think equating conservative with shitty is a mistake. Shitty can stand alone and apart.
Don't sell yourselves short up there. The dead-eyed greed at the top is top tier.
I think part of the reason Literal Prison Island resonates is that too many people see the X people who are visibly unstable and on the street (where I suspect X may be like a thousand), and extrapolate that out to the 12K or 14K number total, and think it's the only solution. When obviously it's neither the only option nor the right one, and the bulk of those 12K or 14K are just, like, quietly poor.
A significant portion have substantial enough drug or mental issues that some kind of involuntary confinement will likely be necessary for some amount of time. Obviously the best option is some sort of therapeutic environment, not jail/prison. But the involuntary aspect does mean it's going to be more expensive than plain old housing, because security costs money. It needn't be on an island, though, because as you note that's just gonna make transitioning into "polite society" that much harder.