12 ms·

I can elaborate. Enforcement of basic car camping and drug possession/use laws has basically gone to zero and as a result there is a sense that Seattle has open

I can elaborate. Enforcement of basic car camping and drug possession/use laws has basically gone to zero and as a result there is a sense that Seattle has opened itself up as a "Risk Free Zone" for homelessness. Stories like https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/just-sickening-man-accused-of-raping-a-woman-in-restroom-of-ballard-car-dealership/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/just-sickeni... have created a sentiment that people are moving to Seattle because of this. While I can't speak to the truth of the belief that people are actively moving to Seattle, I can say that there's little incentive for someone to follow basic property or drug laws in this city. EDIT: To your point on how this differs from "Homeless people are lazy" I guess the idea is that we've created a situation where there are even more factors pushing homeless individuals to the streets and suburbs of Seattle, that Seattle has made homelessness more attractive in a sense.

shaki-dora 7y ago
It's a bit cynical to call homelessness "risk free" in any sense of the term. You seem to be arguing for criminalising poverty. That's going to work just as well as criminalising stupidity, short-sightedness, death, or losing your car keys.
notJim 7y ago
> To your point on how this differs from "Homeless people are lazy" I guess the idea is that we've created a situation where there are even more factors pushing homeless individuals to the streets and suburbs of Seattle, that Seattle has made homelessness more attractive in a sense. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. The best data we have indicates that most homeless people are from the area, so I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that people are moving here from elsewhere. The idea that homelessness is "attractive" is even more absurd. Do you seriously believe that if we just criminalized people a bit more, they'd simply stop choosing to be homeless?
CodeMage 7y ago
> Enforcement of basic car camping and drug possession/use laws has basically gone to zero and as a result there is a sense that Seattle has opened itself up as a "Risk Free Zone" for homelessness. Again, I find this logic to be extremely confusing. How related is "car camping" to Seattle's homeless? Is there some implication that the majority of them have cars they sleep in? Or am I missing something there? As for the incentive to follow basic property or drug laws, again, how does that encourage homelessness? I could understand if you argued it encourages crime, but why homelessness? The only remaining argument is basically "this encourages already homeless people to move to Seattle", which I can see being a problem, but of a different kind. It shares certain aspects with the immigration-related problems: in both cases, it's an effect of a deeper underlying problem that acts as a root cause and should be solved.
- rlt 7y ago
  It seems obvious to me: if laws against behaviors that are common among homeless were actually enforced then some subset of the homeless population would try harder to not be homeless, or move to another location.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Ah, the good old 'bus them out of town, let them be someone else's problem' non-solution.
    - rlt 7y ago
      Sorry, where did I say that? I'm talking about not creating incentives for homeless to concentrate in one city. I'm pretty sure it's better for society overall for the homeless population to be widely distributed than concentrated in one place.
      - CodeMage 7y ago
        > Sorry, where did I say that? Here: > would try harder to [...] move to another location.
        rlt 7y ago
        That's different than putting homeless on busses to another city.
        notJim 7y ago
        Okay, so it's "run them out of town" instead, but the effect is the same: you're just passing the problem off to someone else, to dehumanizing effect for the person.
        rlt 7y ago
        If enforcing property rights and laws that protect public health and safety is "dehumanizing" then I don't know what to tell you.

shaki-dora 7y ago

It's a bit cynical to call homelessness "risk free" in any sense of the term. You seem to be arguing for criminalising poverty. That's going to work just as well as criminalising stupidity, short-sightedness, death, or losing your car keys.

notJim 7y ago

> To your point on how this differs from "Homeless people are lazy" I guess the idea is that we've created a situation where there are even more factors pushing homeless individuals to the streets and suburbs of Seattle, that Seattle has made homelessness more attractive in a sense. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. The best data we have indicates that most homeless people are from the area, so I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that people are moving here from elsewhere. The idea that homelessness is "attractive" is even more absurd. Do you seriously believe that if we just criminalized people a bit more, they'd simply stop choosing to be homeless?

CodeMage 7y ago

> Enforcement of basic car camping and drug possession/use laws has basically gone to zero and as a result there is a sense that Seattle has opened itself up as a "Risk Free Zone" for homelessness. Again, I find this logic to be extremely confusing. How related is "car camping" to Seattle's homeless? Is there some implication that the majority of them have cars they sleep in? Or am I missing something there? As for the incentive to follow basic property or drug laws, again, how does that encourage homelessness? I could understand if you argued it encourages crime, but why homelessness? The only remaining argument is basically "this encourages already homeless people to move to Seattle", which I can see being a problem, but of a different kind. It shares certain aspects with the immigration-related problems: in both cases, it's an effect of a deeper underlying problem that acts as a root cause and should be solved.

rlt 7y ago
It seems obvious to me: if laws against behaviors that are common among homeless were actually enforced then some subset of the homeless population would try harder to not be homeless, or move to another location.
- vkou 7y ago
  Ah, the good old 'bus them out of town, let them be someone else's problem' non-solution.
  - rlt 7y ago
    Sorry, where did I say that? I'm talking about not creating incentives for homeless to concentrate in one city. I'm pretty sure it's better for society overall for the homeless population to be widely distributed than concentrated in one place.
    - CodeMage 7y ago
      > Sorry, where did I say that? Here: > would try harder to [...] move to another location.
      - rlt 7y ago
        That's different than putting homeless on busses to another city.
        notJim 7y ago
        Okay, so it's "run them out of town" instead, but the effect is the same: you're just passing the problem off to someone else, to dehumanizing effect for the person.
        rlt 7y ago
        If enforcing property rights and laws that protect public health and safety is "dehumanizing" then I don't know what to tell you.