4 ms·
#2 people won't let you build shelters where it's affordable to do so. Seattle's homeless shelters should be built outside Moses Lake, not where a studio costs
by coryrc 5y ago
#2 people won't let you build shelters where it's affordable to do so. Seattle's homeless shelters should be built outside Moses Lake, not where a studio costs $300k+. For the amount we already spend, every single chronically homeless person could be housed in dorms built out there and pay for the social workers. Since they aren't doing that, it's clear the real motivation is not to help the homeless.
- pseudalopex 5y agoOutside Moses Lake is far outside Seattle's jurisdiction.
- mjevans 5y agoIt's also far too far away from jobs jobs jobs.
- vineyardmike 5y agoYes, but its not like most of the formerly-homeless sheltered individuals are getting a job in the urban core near the business district where many of the shelters are
- pseudalopex 5y agoAre jobs concentrated specific places or all over? Where do transit lines run? Where are other services located?
- vineyardmike 5y agoIn many cities, the transit is hub-spoke from downtown (which is mostly offices), so not a lot of opportunities. > Are their jobs concentrated elsewhere? Knowledge worker jobs are concentrated downtown, and jobs that are likely to look favorably upon someone homeless are probably not concentrated in any one area.
- pseudalopex 5y agoNot a lot of opportunities for what? It sounds like it would be more difficult for homeless people to travel from or to anywhere else on average.
- coryrc 5y agoThere are quite a few farms out there which need labor. At the wage paid in Seattle, employers can get a more productive worker than someone who has been chronically homeless is capable of being.
- coryrc 5y agoAnd? We don't feed Seattleites with food grown inside its jurisdiction or have landfills within its borders, or house all its prisoners, so why should that be a limitation for where to locate shelters?
- bsder 5y agoShelters won't fix the issue. San Francisco did a breakdown on their homeless. Almost 75% have some chronic health problem. 15% have a traumatic brain injury. That requires facilities for long term medical care. And it basically means universal healthcare. Unfortunately this puts us back to "You know all those facilities that we closed back in the 70s? Yeah, closing them was a stupid idea and we needed to fix them instead."
- coryrc 5y agoSure, shelter, assisted living, prisons, whatever your poison, it's still far cheaper to do outside the area in 99th[0] percentile land costs. [0] spitballing here
- ianhawes 5y agoIt has been talked about ad nauseam that the closure of mental health facilities in the 70s has hurt us with chronic mental health issues today. The problem is that even if we did re-open them today, staffing them would be a nightmare. There is a nearby mental health facility run by my state. They simply do not have enough employees and cannot fill positions and it’s an issue that has existed since before the pandemic. It needs to happen, but it won’t be easy, so it probably won’t happen.
- cheriot 5y ago100% agree that we need a lot more mental health facilities. It's not about fixing every problem, but we can make the problem less bad. The instability and insecurity of sleeping outside makes everything else worse. There are also a lot of people that are functional, but end up homeless because housing is too expensive. Texas doesn't have better healthcare than California, but Houston has fewer homeless because housing is cheaper.