5 ms·

> which is not near Seattle. The city of Seattle has 0 power to force other municipalities to build housing. Any attempts by Seattle to build shelters and low

> which is not near Seattle. The city of Seattle has 0 power to force other municipalities to build housing. Any attempts by Seattle to build shelters and low income housing projects outside of the city limits would be swiftly shut down, assuming those attempts could even get started. Unfortunately Seattle has to pay the burden of the entire region. While some cities, such a Bellevue, are helping out, other cities around here have no real desire, or motivation, to start paying money in, and voters in those other cities would likely make that clear the second their elected officials started spending tax dollars.

epicureanideal 7y ago
They don't need to force them. They can just pay to build housing in another city, and by contract give it for free to certain current residents of Seattle who are without homes.
- kyshoc 7y ago
  why would the other city ever agree to this? we have instances of cities facing outcry from residents for simply building homeless shelters within their own limits[0][1]. I imagine the outcry for a city "shipping out" their homeless to a shelter outside their bounds would be even worse. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisco-gofundme-homeless-shelter-embarcadero https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisc... [1]: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scratches-proposal-for-50-bed-homeless-shelter-near-marina-high-school-after-resident-outcry/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scrat...
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    It doesn't need to be a city. I've thought about this idea myself, pick a state with a large amount of empty land and construct housing, addiction and mental health services in a single place. A massive complex for those unable to care for themselves in society. It would cost billions but it already costs billions nationally to care for the homeless. With lower wages and land values you'd have large cost savings and that's before economies of scale. Let the addiction specialists and mental health professionals set the rules here. They would be limited by the constitution but would be able to enact laws for this very specific segment of the population. A low trust society encased within a high trust society. At that point cities would be free to enact laws to the effect of "get help in the complex or go to prison" when they catch the homeless committing crime. Homeless no longer are a blight to the cities and the homeless get the best help we can offer.
    - eigenvector 7y ago
      What exactly is the difference between what you describe and prison?
      - smileysteve 7y ago
        And herein lies part of the reason for the mentally ill in homelessness; A portion of homelessness is a result of cut mental facility funding combined with ending forced institutionalization.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        Lack of a cell, freedom to leave, no criminal record. Nobody would be forced to go but if you claim you don't need any of these services you will be treated as a regular citizen who just publicly shot up in the street.
    - travisgriggs 7y ago
      Nevada? It worked well for Yucca Mountain...
    - sixtypoundhound 7y ago
      Don't even need to cross state lines in this case - there's plenty of wilderness and low-density space in Washington (even Western Washington) where development is a fraction of the cost of building and operating a facility in Seattle. Build in a cheap area and shift the surplus into social services and vocational training to help people get off the treadmill. Relocation should be behavior based (so not "vagrancy", which is a BS charge, but actual public misconduct or documented threat of self-harm). X strikes and you're relocated unless you can fund an appropriate bond. The rest of the state is probably a healthier place to heal in any event... easier to control access to drugs and alcohol and limit the violence from street predators. The street isn't a very supportive environment....
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
> The city of Seattle has 0 power to force other municipalities to build housing. They also have 0 power in forcing people from the region not to come to the city to become homeless. It is a regional problem, Seattle can only do so much by itself, as you say.
- com2kid 7y ago
  There was a Supreme Court Ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson) years ago the end result of which is that the largest city in an area ends up paying a disproportionate amount of the social benefits costs. Arguably the coastal cities pay a disproportionate share of social welfare program costs for the entire nation. Perverse incentives, small towns can not invest in the future, and just outsource the consequences to larger municipalities.

epicureanideal 7y ago

They don't need to force them. They can just pay to build housing in another city, and by contract give it for free to certain current residents of Seattle who are without homes.

kyshoc 7y ago
why would the other city ever agree to this? we have instances of cities facing outcry from residents for simply building homeless shelters within their own limits[0][1]. I imagine the outcry for a city "shipping out" their homeless to a shelter outside their bounds would be even worse. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisco-gofundme-homeless-shelter-embarcadero https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/28/san-francisc... [1]: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scratches-proposal-for-50-bed-homeless-shelter-near-marina-high-school-after-resident-outcry/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/02/huntington-beach-scrat...
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  It doesn't need to be a city. I've thought about this idea myself, pick a state with a large amount of empty land and construct housing, addiction and mental health services in a single place. A massive complex for those unable to care for themselves in society. It would cost billions but it already costs billions nationally to care for the homeless. With lower wages and land values you'd have large cost savings and that's before economies of scale. Let the addiction specialists and mental health professionals set the rules here. They would be limited by the constitution but would be able to enact laws for this very specific segment of the population. A low trust society encased within a high trust society. At that point cities would be free to enact laws to the effect of "get help in the complex or go to prison" when they catch the homeless committing crime. Homeless no longer are a blight to the cities and the homeless get the best help we can offer.
  - eigenvector 7y ago
    What exactly is the difference between what you describe and prison?
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      And herein lies part of the reason for the mentally ill in homelessness; A portion of homelessness is a result of cut mental facility funding combined with ending forced institutionalization.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      Lack of a cell, freedom to leave, no criminal record. Nobody would be forced to go but if you claim you don't need any of these services you will be treated as a regular citizen who just publicly shot up in the street.
  - travisgriggs 7y ago
    Nevada? It worked well for Yucca Mountain...
  - sixtypoundhound 7y ago
    Don't even need to cross state lines in this case - there's plenty of wilderness and low-density space in Washington (even Western Washington) where development is a fraction of the cost of building and operating a facility in Seattle. Build in a cheap area and shift the surplus into social services and vocational training to help people get off the treadmill. Relocation should be behavior based (so not "vagrancy", which is a BS charge, but actual public misconduct or documented threat of self-harm). X strikes and you're relocated unless you can fund an appropriate bond. The rest of the state is probably a healthier place to heal in any event... easier to control access to drugs and alcohol and limit the violence from street predators. The street isn't a very supportive environment....

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

> The city of Seattle has 0 power to force other municipalities to build housing. They also have 0 power in forcing people from the region not to come to the city to become homeless. It is a regional problem, Seattle can only do so much by itself, as you say.

com2kid 7y ago
There was a Supreme Court Ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson) years ago the end result of which is that the largest city in an area ends up paying a disproportionate amount of the social benefits costs. Arguably the coastal cities pay a disproportionate share of social welfare program costs for the entire nation. Perverse incentives, small towns can not invest in the future, and just outsource the consequences to larger municipalities.