5 ms·

> As a King County resident, though, I want this facility nowhere near me. As long as it stays in Seattle or near SeaTac, I'm ok with it. Yes, this is NIMBYism.

> As a King County resident, though, I want this facility nowhere near me. As long as it stays in Seattle or near SeaTac, I'm ok with it. Yes, this is NIMBYism. At the risk of being flagged into oblivion, this is why I f-king hate the Eastside. I live and own property in Seattle (so I pay King County taxes just like the rest of you lot) and I'm sick and damn tired of Seattle being the dumping ground for whatever crappy problems Bellevue, Redmond, Shoreline, Kirkland, Sammamish, Issaquah, Duvall, and Fall City don't feel like dealing with. This is on top of the city then getting a reputation as being "dirty" and "crime infested" so that those exact same cities in a "regional partnership" can troll bait in front of the people and businesses of Seattle to induce them to move out of the city, thus taking away the tax base to deal with those dumped problems. I guarantee that there are heroin users near you and those people would greatly benefit from this kind of service. Oh, and there are also homeless, unemployed, and special needs people around you, too. Seattle--and SeaTac--isn't the receptacle for the entire region's problems, especially if we're going to get looked down by you lot from high atop your long noses for receiving them.

forrestthewoods 10y ago
If Seattle doesn't want so many addicts maybe we should stop paying for them? Source: Resident of the city of Seattle
- meowface 10y ago
  You're paying one way or another. If not this, you're going to see increased hospital and law enforcement costs.
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    I don't think that's true at all. Seattle has a disproportionately large homeless population when compared to other cities. We have the 3rd highest homeless population but are only the 18th largest city. And we're far from the only city experiencing a housing crisis. So it's a lot more complicated than "you're gonna pay for it one way or another".
    - meowface 10y ago
      Are you suggesting those homeless people will move to a new city if they can't get safe syringes or injections in Seattle?
      - forrestthewoods 10y ago
        I'm suggesting they first moved to Seattle because of the services offered here.
        meowface 10y ago
        Certainly not impossible, but do you have any evidence to support that?
        forrestthewoods 10y ago
        Hard evidence? Nope. Maybe it's only 1%. Or maybe it's 20%. No one knows! My #1 frustration with the homeless crisis in Seattle is that we have almost zero data. In fact almost all of our numbers on how many homeless are in the area come from the annual January one night count! It's absurd. How long have the homeless been homeless? When was their last home? Where was that home? How many times have they bounced into and out of homelessness? When was their last job? What was their job? Why did they become homeless? We honestly have no idea. Solving a problem is particularly different when you don't even know what they underlying source of the problem is! Now gathering this data is actually pretty difficult. Many homeless don't have formal id. And many others have a justifiable distrust of the government and organizations which make them not want to use their real names. In Seattle it gets even more complicated. Different groups don't like to share their numbers as to how many homeless they shelter or how many services they provide. Because if they all start sharing their numbers some of them are bound to start losing their funding. And we wouldn't dollars to be spent more efficiently by another organization now would we? So why is Seattle's homeless population so wildly disproportionate to our city size? <shrug> No one knows and we're just guessing.
        10y ago
rdl 10y ago
I know some junkies in Bellevue, unfortunately, but I can guarantee there are currently no homeless/unemployed/special needs/etc. within ~183' in any direction (and I don't believe my neighbors have suddenly become junkies, either). I agree things are different in higher population density areas. And yes, the Eastside gets a far better deal here.

forrestthewoods 10y ago

If Seattle doesn't want so many addicts maybe we should stop paying for them? Source: Resident of the city of Seattle

meowface 10y ago
You're paying one way or another. If not this, you're going to see increased hospital and law enforcement costs.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  I don't think that's true at all. Seattle has a disproportionately large homeless population when compared to other cities. We have the 3rd highest homeless population but are only the 18th largest city. And we're far from the only city experiencing a housing crisis. So it's a lot more complicated than "you're gonna pay for it one way or another".
  - meowface 10y ago
    Are you suggesting those homeless people will move to a new city if they can't get safe syringes or injections in Seattle?
    - forrestthewoods 10y ago
      I'm suggesting they first moved to Seattle because of the services offered here.
      - meowface 10y ago
        Certainly not impossible, but do you have any evidence to support that?
        forrestthewoods 10y ago
        Hard evidence? Nope. Maybe it's only 1%. Or maybe it's 20%. No one knows! My #1 frustration with the homeless crisis in Seattle is that we have almost zero data. In fact almost all of our numbers on how many homeless are in the area come from the annual January one night count! It's absurd. How long have the homeless been homeless? When was their last home? Where was that home? How many times have they bounced into and out of homelessness? When was their last job? What was their job? Why did they become homeless? We honestly have no idea. Solving a problem is particularly different when you don't even know what they underlying source of the problem is! Now gathering this data is actually pretty difficult. Many homeless don't have formal id. And many others have a justifiable distrust of the government and organizations which make them not want to use their real names. In Seattle it gets even more complicated. Different groups don't like to share their numbers as to how many homeless they shelter or how many services they provide. Because if they all start sharing their numbers some of them are bound to start losing their funding. And we wouldn't dollars to be spent more efficiently by another organization now would we? So why is Seattle's homeless population so wildly disproportionate to our city size? <shrug> No one knows and we're just guessing.
        10y ago

rdl 10y ago

I know some junkies in Bellevue, unfortunately, but I can guarantee there are currently no homeless/unemployed/special needs/etc. within ~183' in any direction (and I don't believe my neighbors have suddenly become junkies, either). I agree things are different in higher population density areas. And yes, the Eastside gets a far better deal here.