11 ms·

Similar experience in Seattle. I lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood for 11 years and left in 2012. I went back to visit a few years ago and it looked like

Similar experience in Seattle. I lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood for 11 years and left in 2012. I went back to visit a few years ago and it looked like the homeless population had doubled or tripled in the time since. And it was already bad when I lived there. These cities seem to have a lot of fundamental societal problems and they have no idea whatsoever how to solve them.

gotoeleven 5y ago
Surprisingly it turns out that if you subsidize homelessness you get more homelessness.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- malandrew 5y ago
  This. When you feed bears, you get problem bears. The National Parks system knows this, but cities like SF and Seattle do not.
  - gmfawcett 5y ago
    So your suggestion is to return the homeless people to their natural habitat in the woods, so they can forage for berries as nature intended?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > This. When you feed bears, you get problem bears. > The National Parks system knows this, but cities like SF and Seattle do not. It should be noted that homeless people are people, not animals. Also, don't park systems kill "problem bears" (e.g. https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/waterton-lakes-national-park-staff-kill-black-bear-that-had-become-a-problem-1.5036261?cache=agylcuxajqn%3FclipId%3D375756 https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/waterton-lakes-national-park-staf...)?
    - giardini 5y ago
      tablespoon says >It should be noted that homeless people are people, not animals.< It should be noted that people are animals too.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > It should be noted that people are animals too. I think you knew what I meant.
  - drcongo 5y ago
    Holy cow. I thought the parent comment was gross, but this really out-did it.
- sveme 5y ago
  How is homelessness subsidized?
  - pbourke 5y ago
    Seattle has, until recently, tolerated encampments on public property. The city council spends great chunks of money on outreach nonprofits that have dubious effectiveness (there are organizations doing good/effective work, to be clear). The Seattle Police Department is woefully understaffed and has given up on responding to many quality of life and public order calls. In addition to drug use, car prowls, etc there is a thriving shoplifting-fencing business going on in spots throughout downtown. Enforcement has been very limited, so the problem has gotten out of hand. I have no clue why the Target near Pike Place remains open - they must be locked in their lease.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    In the mid-2000s when I lived there the city had a policy of not actively disrupting homeless encampments. There was a very well-known encampment located under the I-5 overpass just south of downtown called "The Jungle" [0]. SPD was prohibited from clearing it out and was only authorized to respond to reports of violent crimes. Not theft, drugs, prostitution, public inebriation, etc. Occasionally, it seemed maybe once per year, they would actually get a task force to go sweep it out. But that was mostly only in response to outrage from residents of the adjacent Beacon Hill neighborhood. And then they would go back to ignoring it. And a month later the whole camp was back. This is just one anecdotal example of Seattle's long history of indifference, even tolerance, of "shanty towns" and homeless camps. I don't know how it is now, but King County in general used to be littered with these things and people just seemed to think it was normal. It is absolutely _not_ normal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle)
- emerged 5y ago
  It almost seems like a certain personality of people are drawn toward comfortable places with free food and no law enforcement.
  - gmfawcett 5y ago
    Shocking, isn't it? All of the well-adjusted, professional people I know prefer uncomfortable places, expensive food, and overzealous law enforcement. Seriously though, I can't imagine what point you're trying to make here, other than to share a deep insensitivity to other people's suffering.
    - subjectsigma 5y ago
      I think it's pretty obvious what point he is trying to make. I lived in Hoboken, NJ for nearly five years and had some friends who volunteered at the homeless shelter through church that entire time. The homeless there had pretty good access to food, water, shelter, and drugs (mostly cigarettes and alcohol but I'm sure others). At some point there was talk of a program to move some of the chronically homeless into government housing; when asked if they wanted to participate nearly all of them said no. Think about that. In a city with very little housing where students and young families are clamoring to make rent payments, and the temperature in the winter gets below zero, they were offered free housing (on taxpayer dime) and turned it down. They actively preferred to be homeless. Why? Maybe there were too many carrots being given out, and not enough threatening with sticks. (Mind you, the sticks do not have to be cops and jail, although those are pretty big sticks. Forced rehab sounds pretty good.)
      - teucris 5y ago
        Did someone ask why they didn’t want to move into government housing? Because this is a known issue and it’s not because the homeless aren’t being punished enough. People are afraid to be split from their community, don’t want to be forced to leave if something goes wrong, or don’t want to move to an area far away from the resources they need for their daily lives [0]. 0: https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/v74y3j/this-is-why-homeless-people-dont-go-to-shelters https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/v74y3j/this-is-why-homel...
- istjohn 5y ago
  Surprisingly it turns out that if you don't build homes, you get more homelessness.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    To a close approximation, all of the "rough" homeless (i.e. the ones you see on the street) are mentally ill or addicts, not people down on their luck who cannot afford to rent or buy a home.
    - throwaway14356 5y ago
      most use to be
    - istjohn 5y ago
      Most people with drug addiction or other mental illnesses have no problem keeping a roof over their head in other parts of the US. 20% of Americans experience mental illness any given year.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    The chronically homeless are incapable of benefiting from affordable housing because that's not why they're homeless in the first place. It's pretty much always mental health, drug and alcohol addiction.
    - pgodzin 5y ago
      If that were the case we wouldn't see the chronically homeless all disproportionately clustered around areas where housing costs have exploded, and it's not just because of money spent on services there.
      - jstarfish 5y ago
        The homeless are always going to flock to where the people with money are. It does seem counterintuitive, but when your local economy is shit (i.e. panhandling in ghettos), you're going to emigrate somewhere with more opportunity.
agilob 5y ago
Amazon Moves Workers From a Seattle Office in Crime-Hit Area https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/amazon-shuts-small-seattle-office-after-spate-of-crimes-in-area https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/amazon-sh...
- seaourfreed 5y ago
  Amazon is moving from Seattle to Bellevue over the next few years. 13 skyscraper buildings are going up in Bellevue for Amazon. The tallest building on the eastside will be Amazon's new building in Bellevue.
cle 5y ago
They do know how to "solve" them, they just don't agree on the true problem in the first place, due to different value systems.
hpcjoe 5y ago
I worked for a company in SF from 2017 until 2019. Then a Seattle based company. SF was bad then, around the edge of Chinatown and the financial district. But I'm from NY, so I can deal with that. Generally. The mentally ill screaming at walls and other random people was a bit much though. Seattle had aggressive people on the street. This didn't worry me so much, though they had many of them. Again, more than a few mentally ill. I recall SF from the late 90s/mid 2000s. It was nice then. As was Seattle. Something happened. Similar things happened in NYC, after Bloomburg left. Its not hard to find the policy proximate causes that rendered these once great cities into steaming sh!tholes with rampant crime. My question is, when will people move beyond their political tribalism and virtue signalling and start addressing the core issues? FWIW, I live near Detroit MI USA. It is on a long slow recovery from decades of terrible policy, horrible and criminal politicians. It is showing signs of growth and recovery. Cost of living is low. Crime is falling. All it took was jailing some pols, electing competent (non-ideologue) management, and forming public-private partnerships. It may take another 20 years or so before its really showing what it could be. But its changing. And as someone who has lived in the area for 30+ years, you kinda root for Detroit. It was destroyed by grifters and ideologues, by bad and corrupt management, and many other things. But it has character. It has a presence. And you like to go to the Science Museum (my wife used to be director of education there), and the programs at the universities. And the parks (yes, really). And the restaurants. I hope, one day, that SF, Seattle, NYC, and others can elect competent non-ideologue management, sweep out the grifters, implementing good policy, and help hasten the rebuilding of these once great cities. But then again, this also requires doing the same at the state level. Here in Michigan we had a pro-growth governor and traded down to an ideologue. That person doesn't look likely to remain in office, so here's hoping we don't get yet another grifter.
- GoodJokes 5y ago

gotoeleven 5y ago

Surprisingly it turns out that if you subsidize homelessness you get more homelessness.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 5y ago
This. When you feed bears, you get problem bears. The National Parks system knows this, but cities like SF and Seattle do not.
- gmfawcett 5y ago
  So your suggestion is to return the homeless people to their natural habitat in the woods, so they can forage for berries as nature intended?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This. When you feed bears, you get problem bears. > The National Parks system knows this, but cities like SF and Seattle do not. It should be noted that homeless people are people, not animals. Also, don't park systems kill "problem bears" (e.g. https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/waterton-lakes-national-park-staff-kill-black-bear-that-had-become-a-problem-1.5036261?cache=agylcuxajqn%3FclipId%3D375756 https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/waterton-lakes-national-park-staf...)?
  - giardini 5y ago
    tablespoon says >It should be noted that homeless people are people, not animals.< It should be noted that people are animals too.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > It should be noted that people are animals too. I think you knew what I meant.
- drcongo 5y ago
  Holy cow. I thought the parent comment was gross, but this really out-did it.
sveme 5y ago
How is homelessness subsidized?
- pbourke 5y ago
  Seattle has, until recently, tolerated encampments on public property. The city council spends great chunks of money on outreach nonprofits that have dubious effectiveness (there are organizations doing good/effective work, to be clear). The Seattle Police Department is woefully understaffed and has given up on responding to many quality of life and public order calls. In addition to drug use, car prowls, etc there is a thriving shoplifting-fencing business going on in spots throughout downtown. Enforcement has been very limited, so the problem has gotten out of hand. I have no clue why the Target near Pike Place remains open - they must be locked in their lease.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  In the mid-2000s when I lived there the city had a policy of not actively disrupting homeless encampments. There was a very well-known encampment located under the I-5 overpass just south of downtown called "The Jungle" [0]. SPD was prohibited from clearing it out and was only authorized to respond to reports of violent crimes. Not theft, drugs, prostitution, public inebriation, etc. Occasionally, it seemed maybe once per year, they would actually get a task force to go sweep it out. But that was mostly only in response to outrage from residents of the adjacent Beacon Hill neighborhood. And then they would go back to ignoring it. And a month later the whole camp was back. This is just one anecdotal example of Seattle's long history of indifference, even tolerance, of "shanty towns" and homeless camps. I don't know how it is now, but King County in general used to be littered with these things and people just seemed to think it was normal. It is absolutely _not_ normal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle)
emerged 5y ago
It almost seems like a certain personality of people are drawn toward comfortable places with free food and no law enforcement.
- gmfawcett 5y ago
  Shocking, isn't it? All of the well-adjusted, professional people I know prefer uncomfortable places, expensive food, and overzealous law enforcement. Seriously though, I can't imagine what point you're trying to make here, other than to share a deep insensitivity to other people's suffering.
  - subjectsigma 5y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious what point he is trying to make. I lived in Hoboken, NJ for nearly five years and had some friends who volunteered at the homeless shelter through church that entire time. The homeless there had pretty good access to food, water, shelter, and drugs (mostly cigarettes and alcohol but I'm sure others). At some point there was talk of a program to move some of the chronically homeless into government housing; when asked if they wanted to participate nearly all of them said no. Think about that. In a city with very little housing where students and young families are clamoring to make rent payments, and the temperature in the winter gets below zero, they were offered free housing (on taxpayer dime) and turned it down. They actively preferred to be homeless. Why? Maybe there were too many carrots being given out, and not enough threatening with sticks. (Mind you, the sticks do not have to be cops and jail, although those are pretty big sticks. Forced rehab sounds pretty good.)
    - teucris 5y ago
      Did someone ask why they didn’t want to move into government housing? Because this is a known issue and it’s not because the homeless aren’t being punished enough. People are afraid to be split from their community, don’t want to be forced to leave if something goes wrong, or don’t want to move to an area far away from the resources they need for their daily lives [0]. 0: https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/v74y3j/this-is-why-homeless-people-dont-go-to-shelters https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/v74y3j/this-is-why-homel...
istjohn 5y ago
Surprisingly it turns out that if you don't build homes, you get more homelessness.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  To a close approximation, all of the "rough" homeless (i.e. the ones you see on the street) are mentally ill or addicts, not people down on their luck who cannot afford to rent or buy a home.
  - throwaway14356 5y ago
    most use to be
  - istjohn 5y ago
    Most people with drug addiction or other mental illnesses have no problem keeping a roof over their head in other parts of the US. 20% of Americans experience mental illness any given year.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  The chronically homeless are incapable of benefiting from affordable housing because that's not why they're homeless in the first place. It's pretty much always mental health, drug and alcohol addiction.
  - pgodzin 5y ago
    If that were the case we wouldn't see the chronically homeless all disproportionately clustered around areas where housing costs have exploded, and it's not just because of money spent on services there.
    - jstarfish 5y ago
      The homeless are always going to flock to where the people with money are. It does seem counterintuitive, but when your local economy is shit (i.e. panhandling in ghettos), you're going to emigrate somewhere with more opportunity.

agilob 5y ago

Amazon Moves Workers From a Seattle Office in Crime-Hit Area https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/amazon-shuts-small-seattle-office-after-spate-of-crimes-in-area https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/amazon-sh...

seaourfreed 5y ago
Amazon is moving from Seattle to Bellevue over the next few years. 13 skyscraper buildings are going up in Bellevue for Amazon. The tallest building on the eastside will be Amazon's new building in Bellevue.

cle 5y ago

They do know how to "solve" them, they just don't agree on the true problem in the first place, due to different value systems.

hpcjoe 5y ago

I worked for a company in SF from 2017 until 2019. Then a Seattle based company. SF was bad then, around the edge of Chinatown and the financial district. But I'm from NY, so I can deal with that. Generally. The mentally ill screaming at walls and other random people was a bit much though. Seattle had aggressive people on the street. This didn't worry me so much, though they had many of them. Again, more than a few mentally ill. I recall SF from the late 90s/mid 2000s. It was nice then. As was Seattle. Something happened. Similar things happened in NYC, after Bloomburg left. Its not hard to find the policy proximate causes that rendered these once great cities into steaming sh!tholes with rampant crime. My question is, when will people move beyond their political tribalism and virtue signalling and start addressing the core issues? FWIW, I live near Detroit MI USA. It is on a long slow recovery from decades of terrible policy, horrible and criminal politicians. It is showing signs of growth and recovery. Cost of living is low. Crime is falling. All it took was jailing some pols, electing competent (non-ideologue) management, and forming public-private partnerships. It may take another 20 years or so before its really showing what it could be. But its changing. And as someone who has lived in the area for 30+ years, you kinda root for Detroit. It was destroyed by grifters and ideologues, by bad and corrupt management, and many other things. But it has character. It has a presence. And you like to go to the Science Museum (my wife used to be director of education there), and the programs at the universities. And the parks (yes, really). And the restaurants. I hope, one day, that SF, Seattle, NYC, and others can elect competent non-ideologue management, sweep out the grifters, implementing good policy, and help hasten the rebuilding of these once great cities. But then again, this also requires doing the same at the state level. Here in Michigan we had a pro-growth governor and traded down to an ideologue. That person doesn't look likely to remain in office, so here's hoping we don't get yet another grifter.

GoodJokes 5y ago