6 ms·

> The reality is that while squatters might hold political beliefs, few people would choose to squat if they had other housing options Here in Seattle, time an

> The reality is that while squatters might hold political beliefs, few people would choose to squat if they had other housing options Here in Seattle, time and time again, studies are done which show the majority of homeless, when offered shelter, turn it down and prefer to live on the streets. Which seems to completely contradict your claim that they would make use of housing options. Maybe Seattle homeless are different than your homeless. I don't know why that'd be the case. The same people with the same political ideologies blame the cause of it on the same things, in both places, at least. https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/many-homeless-people-decline-shelter-offers-by-city-of-seattle-report-finds https://komonews.com/news/project-seattle/many-homeless-peop... https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-city-council-wants-data-on-why-people-experiencing-homelessness-reject-shelter-homeless-king-county-washington-street-region-policy-tammy-morales-human-services-public-meeting-offers-michael-bailey https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-city-council-wants-d... https://www.seattlepi.com/homeless_in_seattle/article/A-lot-of-homeless-people-the-city-refers-to-14504490.php https://www.seattlepi.com/homeless_in_seattle/article/A-lot-...

kerkeslager 2y ago
> > The reality is that while squatters might hold political beliefs, few people would choose to squat if they had other housing options > Here in Seattle, time and time again, studies are done which show the majority of homeless, when offered shelter, turn it down and prefer to live on the streets. Which seems to completely contradict your claim that they would make use of housing options. Shelters aren't homes. Can they store their things there and reasonably expect they won't be stolen? Can they have pets? Can they have privacy? Would you stay in a homeless shelter? I mean, come on. The fact that anyone at all says yes to staying in these places shows just how bad staying on the streets is.
MrJohz 2y ago
Interestingly, they've found the opposite effect in a number of places in Europe, which suggests that the Seattle homeless population really are quite different, or that there's something odd in how these sorts of policies are being implemented in Seattle. I suspect the latter: you're talking about temporary shelter accommodation, but the policy of Housing First is to give homeless people permanent flats and houses of their own. I can understand why people would not be interested in the former but would accept the latter. See for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://thebetter.news/housing-first-finland-homelessness/ https://thebetter.news/housing-first-finland-homelessness/
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  There’s also the fact that compared to Europe, you can do quite a bit of hard drugs in public in Seattle and not really have a cop go after you over it. This also precludes shelters, since accepting the offer of shelter probably means accepting withdraw symptoms as well since you aren’t allowed to do drugs there.
petre 2y ago
Maybe the shelter comes with strings attached, like no booze on the premisses. This is a nonstarter for people living on the street where they can freely drink booze.
- dpig_ 2y ago
  "We offered housing to people with complex pyscho-social circumstances on the condition that they will stop having those circumstances. And yet they continued to have them - this was unacceptable."
southerntofu 2y ago
At least here in France, the "housing" they offer is just a mattress in a huge room with no intimacy and dangerous people around. Most homeless people are skeptical at first, but after getting robbed/assaulted they certainly will refuse temporary housing for the rest of their life. If the authorities really cared about the homeless, they would requisition empty dwellings and assign them individually so people have a proper home to rebuild their life.
- hollerith 2y ago
  Why would you want the authorities to requisition dwellings when they could buy them instead? What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly?
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? Because landlords are buying up the resources other people need to live and price gouging them.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? Compassion. They see someone without a roof over their head, while at the same time seeing agencies/owners owning multiple properties just to enrich themselves. It's not hard to understand why people are more compassionate towards the people with nothing, compared to how they see the people with a lot.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Sure, but does it not occur to them that property owners might be performing an important function such that a policy that causes most of them to leave landlording might worsen the situation of homeless people and other poor people? Suppose the government instituted a rule that applies to any game developer and in particular to the developer's office or whatever structure he likes to be inside when he is developing games or meeting with the other developers working on the same game. The rule says that if the game developer leaves his office and fails to hire a security guard to watch the property, then 72 hours after the game developer's departure, anyone (including career criminals) have a legal right to take over the office (even if the developer's office is his home). Wouldn't that curtail -- possibly severely -- the quantity and the quality of new games developed in whatever jurisdiction the rule applies to? Or at least raise the price of games (to cover the cost of the security guards and to compensate developers for the hassle) with the result that some of the consumers who used to be able to afford to buy video games are now priced out of the market?
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
Being offered one night in a shelter that won't let you and your wife sleep in the same room is not a good faith example of being offered housing. It's not at all surprising that people prefer living on the streets to sleeping in a crappy shelter.

kerkeslager 2y ago

> > The reality is that while squatters might hold political beliefs, few people would choose to squat if they had other housing options > Here in Seattle, time and time again, studies are done which show the majority of homeless, when offered shelter, turn it down and prefer to live on the streets. Which seems to completely contradict your claim that they would make use of housing options. Shelters aren't homes. Can they store their things there and reasonably expect they won't be stolen? Can they have pets? Can they have privacy? Would you stay in a homeless shelter? I mean, come on. The fact that anyone at all says yes to staying in these places shows just how bad staying on the streets is.

MrJohz 2y ago

Interestingly, they've found the opposite effect in a number of places in Europe, which suggests that the Seattle homeless population really are quite different, or that there's something odd in how these sorts of policies are being implemented in Seattle. I suspect the latter: you're talking about temporary shelter accommodation, but the policy of Housing First is to give homeless people permanent flats and houses of their own. I can understand why people would not be interested in the former but would accept the latter. See for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://thebetter.news/housing-first-finland-homelessness/ https://thebetter.news/housing-first-finland-homelessness/

kjkjadksj 2y ago
There’s also the fact that compared to Europe, you can do quite a bit of hard drugs in public in Seattle and not really have a cop go after you over it. This also precludes shelters, since accepting the offer of shelter probably means accepting withdraw symptoms as well since you aren’t allowed to do drugs there.

petre 2y ago

Maybe the shelter comes with strings attached, like no booze on the premisses. This is a nonstarter for people living on the street where they can freely drink booze.

dpig_ 2y ago
"We offered housing to people with complex pyscho-social circumstances on the condition that they will stop having those circumstances. And yet they continued to have them - this was unacceptable."

southerntofu 2y ago

At least here in France, the "housing" they offer is just a mattress in a huge room with no intimacy and dangerous people around. Most homeless people are skeptical at first, but after getting robbed/assaulted they certainly will refuse temporary housing for the rest of their life. If the authorities really cared about the homeless, they would requisition empty dwellings and assign them individually so people have a proper home to rebuild their life.

hollerith 2y ago
Why would you want the authorities to requisition dwellings when they could buy them instead? What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly?
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? Because landlords are buying up the resources other people need to live and price gouging them.
- diggan 2y ago
  > What is it about this issue that makes so many people wish to treat landlords harshly? Compassion. They see someone without a roof over their head, while at the same time seeing agencies/owners owning multiple properties just to enrich themselves. It's not hard to understand why people are more compassionate towards the people with nothing, compared to how they see the people with a lot.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Sure, but does it not occur to them that property owners might be performing an important function such that a policy that causes most of them to leave landlording might worsen the situation of homeless people and other poor people? Suppose the government instituted a rule that applies to any game developer and in particular to the developer's office or whatever structure he likes to be inside when he is developing games or meeting with the other developers working on the same game. The rule says that if the game developer leaves his office and fails to hire a security guard to watch the property, then 72 hours after the game developer's departure, anyone (including career criminals) have a legal right to take over the office (even if the developer's office is his home). Wouldn't that curtail -- possibly severely -- the quantity and the quality of new games developed in whatever jurisdiction the rule applies to? Or at least raise the price of games (to cover the cost of the security guards and to compensate developers for the hassle) with the result that some of the consumers who used to be able to afford to buy video games are now priced out of the market?

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

Being offered one night in a shelter that won't let you and your wife sleep in the same room is not a good faith example of being offered housing. It's not at all surprising that people prefer living on the streets to sleeping in a crappy shelter.