7 ms·

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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

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.