4 ms·

I didn't deny that homelessness is a problem, please re-read my comment. Perhaps I've been "screaming the tune" for a decade but in that time the cost of housi

I didn't deny that homelessness is a problem, please re-read my comment. Perhaps I've been "screaming the tune" for a decade but in that time the cost of housing has gone up dramatically. In 2009 I rented a 2-br apartment in Capitol Hill for $1,600 -- parking included. In 2019 I rented a studio apartment in the same neighborhood for the same -- parking not included. I can produce examples like this all day. My point is, we haven't successfully tackled the problem of inequality and affordability. In my opinion, we must tackle the root problem if we hope to resolve the issue long term. We can do that _and_ address the symptoms in parallel. However if I had to bet, my money is on housing continuing it's inexorable rise over the next decade, pushing further people into destitution. I've tried to respond in "good faith." Your turn.

mlyle 3y ago
Homelessness is a huge problem that needs additional resources. Most of it isn't really visible. And then there's the huge sub-problem of people who are chronically homeless, drug-addicted, and visible. Large efforts at simply improving access to housing are likely to make a large dent in the larger homelessness problem, but may not be effective in addressing people with long-standing drug addiction and behavioral disorders. Many/most have behaviors that are incompatible with conventional housing. The solution for this subgroup is going to be a lot more complicated.
- aschearer 3y ago
  Replying so you don't feel left out -- I hadn't because I don't feel there's much left to add. I agree with you. There is more than one piece to the puzzle. We seem to agree that housing is one of the bigger pieces, though. So let's start there and make some progress for a change. Let's not throw our hands up, like some in this thread, and say we've exhausted this approach and it's time for the stick. For the rest, we'll have to go case-by-case. For the most recalcitrant, anti-social cases we may need the stick in the end. Hopefully by that point we can say the system isn't pathological. Regardless, I suspect the cases on that end of the spectrum will be less "homeless" and more "criminal."
remarkEon 3y ago
We’re clearly not talking about the same problem. There isn’t a direct line from you not being able to find the same square footage for $1600 in 2019 as you did in 2009, and you winding up as a hopeless drug addict in Cal Anderson. I’m all for draconian policies to address rising housing costs (such a extreme excise taxes on vacant units, of which there are a lot in Seattle and Portland), but that doesn’t have anything to do with tent cities in the Puget Sound area. If Capital Hill suddenly had the same inventory of 2 bedroom units with parking at $1600 a month that it did in 2009, the broader problems do not go away. These people we’re talking about will all be dead by the time any of yours or my pet ideas to increase housing supply come to fruition. And yet, in the here and now, there’s a continuing escalation of health and safety issues that, again, don’t go away if rents suddenly drop.
- worik 3y ago
  > There isn’t a direct line from you not being able to find the same square footage for $1600 in 2019 as you did in 2009, and you winding up as a hopeless drug addict in Cal Anderson Yes. There. Is.
- aschearer 3y ago
  I've advanced the position that 1) we should agree to tackle the root cause of the problem primarily but not exclusively and 2) we should identify and agree on what the root cause is. I'm not clear if you agree with the above. I've explained what I believe to be the root of the problem. You have not. I've explained some ways we might ameliorate the problem. You have not. It's difficult to have a conversation when the interlocutor won't state their positions and take a stand. Even more so when they accuse you of "screaming" and acting in "bad faith." I'm left to infer what you're thinking. I imagine it's that inequality is not linked to the rise in homelessness. (I disagree.) That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before. (I'm very skeptical.) And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved. (I doubt it, but that's not to say we can't protect our public spaces more vigerously.) If I pegged you wrong, I apologize and look forward to being corrected. If not, then let's agree to disagree.
  - 3y ago

mlyle 3y ago

Homelessness is a huge problem that needs additional resources. Most of it isn't really visible. And then there's the huge sub-problem of people who are chronically homeless, drug-addicted, and visible. Large efforts at simply improving access to housing are likely to make a large dent in the larger homelessness problem, but may not be effective in addressing people with long-standing drug addiction and behavioral disorders. Many/most have behaviors that are incompatible with conventional housing. The solution for this subgroup is going to be a lot more complicated.

aschearer 3y ago
Replying so you don't feel left out -- I hadn't because I don't feel there's much left to add. I agree with you. There is more than one piece to the puzzle. We seem to agree that housing is one of the bigger pieces, though. So let's start there and make some progress for a change. Let's not throw our hands up, like some in this thread, and say we've exhausted this approach and it's time for the stick. For the rest, we'll have to go case-by-case. For the most recalcitrant, anti-social cases we may need the stick in the end. Hopefully by that point we can say the system isn't pathological. Regardless, I suspect the cases on that end of the spectrum will be less "homeless" and more "criminal."

remarkEon 3y ago

We’re clearly not talking about the same problem. There isn’t a direct line from you not being able to find the same square footage for $1600 in 2019 as you did in 2009, and you winding up as a hopeless drug addict in Cal Anderson. I’m all for draconian policies to address rising housing costs (such a extreme excise taxes on vacant units, of which there are a lot in Seattle and Portland), but that doesn’t have anything to do with tent cities in the Puget Sound area. If Capital Hill suddenly had the same inventory of 2 bedroom units with parking at $1600 a month that it did in 2009, the broader problems do not go away. These people we’re talking about will all be dead by the time any of yours or my pet ideas to increase housing supply come to fruition. And yet, in the here and now, there’s a continuing escalation of health and safety issues that, again, don’t go away if rents suddenly drop.

worik 3y ago
> There isn’t a direct line from you not being able to find the same square footage for $1600 in 2019 as you did in 2009, and you winding up as a hopeless drug addict in Cal Anderson Yes. There. Is.
aschearer 3y ago
I've advanced the position that 1) we should agree to tackle the root cause of the problem primarily but not exclusively and 2) we should identify and agree on what the root cause is. I'm not clear if you agree with the above. I've explained what I believe to be the root of the problem. You have not. I've explained some ways we might ameliorate the problem. You have not. It's difficult to have a conversation when the interlocutor won't state their positions and take a stand. Even more so when they accuse you of "screaming" and acting in "bad faith." I'm left to infer what you're thinking. I imagine it's that inequality is not linked to the rise in homelessness. (I disagree.) That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before. (I'm very skeptical.) And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved. (I doubt it, but that's not to say we can't protect our public spaces more vigerously.) If I pegged you wrong, I apologize and look forward to being corrected. If not, then let's agree to disagree.
- 3y ago