3 ms·

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

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.
- mlyle 3y ago
  I replied to you also, and you chose not to answer. > That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before. Maybe somewhat; but a bigger part of it is that what was a problem spread throughout the US was successfully exported by the rest of the country to a few west coast cities. > And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved. No, I don't think anyone is saying that. But adding housing isn't enough. Homeless shelters successfully use inability to stop using drugs during length of stay as a predictor of violent, antisocial, and destructive behavior. You can't just place these people in housing units without a lot more scaffolding, support, and treatment. "Housing first" works very well for 85%+ of homeless people, but treating this like it's one homogenous problem isn't going to be successful. If you try to just cram the rest into housing, they're going to still end up disrupting streets and causing property damage. > protect our public spaces more vigerously. Chasing the chronically homeless and ill from place to place isn't what I want. That game of musical chairs is what we do now.

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.

mlyle 3y ago
I replied to you also, and you chose not to answer. > That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before. Maybe somewhat; but a bigger part of it is that what was a problem spread throughout the US was successfully exported by the rest of the country to a few west coast cities. > And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved. No, I don't think anyone is saying that. But adding housing isn't enough. Homeless shelters successfully use inability to stop using drugs during length of stay as a predictor of violent, antisocial, and destructive behavior. You can't just place these people in housing units without a lot more scaffolding, support, and treatment. "Housing first" works very well for 85%+ of homeless people, but treating this like it's one homogenous problem isn't going to be successful. If you try to just cram the rest into housing, they're going to still end up disrupting streets and causing property damage. > protect our public spaces more vigerously. Chasing the chronically homeless and ill from place to place isn't what I want. That game of musical chairs is what we do now.