Is Seattle dying?

[crashtech]

It is always odd to me that conservatives are all about fewer government regulations unless those regulations are to prevent people from building adequate housing.

Predominately liberal cities are having serious problems, so even if what you say is correct, many liberals must also be helping prevent the construction of affordable housing. NIMBY is not confined to one party or ideology. I believe there was a discussion about this in regards to San Francisco a while back, it's absurd to declare that the only ones against affordable/high density housing are conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

if you watch the hour long video in my first post link it will answer your questions.

I'm not watching an hour long video but I'm open to hearing the major points and discussing them.

The evidence is pretty clear though if you want to tackle homelessness it's fundamentally rooted in housing costs. If you aren't addressing that, you aren't addressing the issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Predominately liberal cities are having serious problems, so even if what you say is correct, many liberals must also be helping prevent the construction of affordable housing. NIMBY is not confined to one party or ideology. I believe there was a discussion about this in regards to San Francisco a while back, it's absurd to declare that the only ones against affordable/high density housing are conservative.

Where did I declare that the only ones against affordable or high density housing are conservative? If anything I've said the opposite many, many times.

 

[Jhhnn]

The answer to homelessness is housing, even if we have to give it away. I mean, we give away all kinds of expensive stuff all over the world, like tomahawk missiles, bombs, artillery shells & so forth. We spend even more to get it to the people we want to give it to.

 

[Vic]

It is always odd to me that conservatives are all about fewer government regulations unless those regulations are to prevent people from building adequate housing.

I suspect this is because they have no more interest in addressing housing affordability than they do healthcare affordability (for example), and just bring up this issue for the sake of shitposting about all things liberal.

 

[Vic]

Predominately liberal cities are having serious problems, so even if what you say is correct, many liberals must also be helping prevent the construction of affordable housing. NIMBY is not confined to one party or ideology. I believe there was a discussion about this in regards to San Francisco a while back, it's absurd to declare that the only ones against affordable/high density housing are conservative.

NIMBYism isn't the sole cause of the issue of affordable housing. For example, why do all these people want to live in Seattle or San Francisco when there is more affordable housing in other cities not that far from either of those cities?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Going from the specific to the general, a few themes loom large in our political discourse over as much as a hundred years.

One of those things is "property rights", and one could certainly say that even the Civil War was fought over the concept of property rights, when people were considered property. If the expression "judicial activism" seems to originate on the Right, an objective understanding of it shows that there is pro-business judicial activism as well as the meaning the Right attaches.

The other theme is the nature and purpose of civilization and society, in contrast to the Law of the Jungle. In the Jungle, there is no Law. Property rights aren't defined by the State because the State doesn't exist. And in the Rightist ideology, the political symbol and goal of "freedom" is considered potentially infinite, with promises made to those less likely to achieve it, and benefits accruing to those whose freedom is already almost infinite.

And so the Right taunts us with impossible visions of prosperity through unbridled freedom, but ignores the costs of dragging the Jungle into our civilized environment.

Thus, real problems, from climate change to homelessness and the drug epidemic, are never adequately addressed, even in a Blue state like Washington or California. And the rural Right, who don't live in those kinds of urban environments with both benefits we all acknowledge as well as the costs inadequately addressed, blame the Left.

So quoting Hobbes, the Right is just fine with lives that are "brutish, nasty and short", as long as it's someone else's life and not theirs. The Jungle is just fine. And they can get away with electing a pampered Anti-Christ to the White House and selling the idea as wholesome to a broader range of people whose lives are already brutish, nasty and short.

 

[crashtech]

NIMBYism isn't the sole cause of the issue of affordable housing. For example, why do all these people want to live in Seattle or San Francisco when there is more affordable housing in other cities not that far from either of those cities?

I totally agree with you that the problem is multifaceted; my passion happens to lie in changing drug policy, but that too is only one part of the problem. Ideally we should all take allies where we can get them; from my perspective this problem is more ingrained in society at large than it is the fault of any particular ideology.

 

[Luna1968]

I'm not watching an hour long video but I'm open to hearing the major points and discussing them.

The evidence is pretty clear though if you want to tackle homelessness it's fundamentally rooted in housing costs. If you aren't addressing that, you aren't addressing the issue.

the hour long video you refuse to watch clearly explains that the major cause for the tent camps in Seattle are drugs and a judicial system and government that refuses to address it as a drug problem. so im sorry but in this case of Seattle's problems, you are flat out wrong with calling it a cost of housing issue.

 

[Luna1968]

NIMBYism isn't the sole cause of the issue of affordable housing. For example, why do all these people want to live in Seattle or San Francisco when there is more affordable housing in other cities not that far from either of those cities?

because the government has taken away the teeth of the judicial system.

 

[hal2kilo]

the hour long video you refuse to watch clearly explains that the major cause for the tent camps in Seattle are drugs and a judicial system and government that refuses to address it as a drug problem. so im sorry but in this case of Seattle's problems, you are flat out wrong with calling it a cost of housing issue.

I'm sorry. This isn't a get on my moral high horse drugs blah blah bad. You'd have to be blind not to see that the majority, that unbelievable increase of homelessness at least in this part of the world is substance abuse oriented. Why oh why, when they clean up one of these "villages" do they have to have people wearing anti cutting gloves, to clean out the needles left all over the place. Oh, and the reality, is this isn't just happening in urban areas. I live out where 2 1/2 acre lots and 5 acre lots are the norm. Yet, within a block of my house at the end of a cul-de-sac, lives god knows how many people, at least 8 cars, blue tarps, and junk all over the place. It is well known that there are a bunch of meth heads living there, and there are a least 3 more of these "camps" within 2 or 3 miles of my house. Yep, drugs aren't the problem.

 

[fskimospy]

the hour long video you refuse to watch clearly explains that the major cause for the tent camps in Seattle are drugs and a judicial system and government that refuses to address it as a drug problem. so im sorry but in this case of Seattle's problems, you are flat out wrong with calling it a cost of housing issue.

Can you provide me with what empirical research or quantitative analysis he's using to identify it as primarily a drug problem and not a housing affordability problem? Is there any?

Let's talk about the data though - despite increasing opioid addiction being a problem nationwide the average state has actually seen homelessness DECREASE in recent years. If drug addiction were the cause the opposite should be true.

https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_18_147

As in previous years, there is significant local variation in the data reported from different parts of the country. Thirty-one (31) states and the District of Columbia reported decreases in homelessness between 2017 and 2018 while 19 states reported increases in the number of persons experiencing homelessness.

Instead, homelessness increases are clustered in areas that have seen explosive growth in median rents and/or contraction in the low end housing supply. Places like Seattle.

https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/#_edn2

The cluster where people are most at risk of homelessness due to some combination of these factors includes New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle, which all have crossed the 32 percent affordability threshold – as well as Las Vegas, St. Louis and Anchorage, which have not.

In this cluster, rent is 29 percent higher on average than the rest of the country, and the average homeless rate is much higher than in any other cluster. Almost half (49.7 percent) of renters in this cluster spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The CoCs in this cluster – one of six clusters identified by this research – are home to 15.1 percent of the total U.S. population, but a staggering 47.3 percent of the nation’s homeless population.

Here's some more data on the issue:

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-i...cs-of-homelessness-in-seattle-and-king-county

So I've given you analysis from professional homelessness advocates that say high housing costs are the #1 problem. I've given you data from HUD that shows homelessness is decreasing in most states despite drug overdoses increasing basically nationwide. I've given you data on how Seattle specifically faces a rental affordability crisis they are only now starting to get a handle on. All of these point to the fact that drug addiction is simply not the primary driving force behind the increase in homelessness. It's shitty housing policy.

If you have data or empirical analysis that shows otherwise I'm very interested to see it but a local news report is not going to cut it.

 

[Luna1968]

Can you provide me with what empirical research or quantitative analysis he's using to identify it as primarily a drug problem and not a housing affordability problem? Is there any?

ok im done with you. there is no sense in having productive dialog with you when you keep commenting on a issue you seem to know nothing about. I posted a video of a hour long LOCAL news story about the issue in Seattle and you refuse to watch it and demand research from me on the researcher and his methods... lol

 

[fskimospy]

ok im done with you. there is no sense in having productive dialog with you when you keep commenting on a issue you seem to know nothing about. I posted a video of a hour long LOCAL news story about the issue in Seattle and you refuse to watch it and demand research from me on the researcher and his methods... lol

He's not a researcher, he's a local news anchor. Do I really have to remind you of just how absurd and poorly validated most local journalism is? This is what you do when you want to have a productive dialogue on a topic where we disagree. You don't provide a youtube video, you provide actual empirical research and data on the subject that we can both review and discuss. I've done exactly that, from credible sources. Now it's your turn.

If you think drug use is the primary cause of the increase in homelessness in certain areas of the country such as Seattle then provide data that says as much. Specifically, you should be looking for data that shows Seattle has experienced a significantly larger increase in drug addiction per capita than other areas that have experienced smaller per capita increases in homelessness, things like that. This would be doubly valuable if you can find areas with similar rises in median rents that have not had such a problem with homelessness. I think rising rents are the primary cause, that's why I provided you with data that showed as much. Can you do the same? If not, why not re-evaluate your position?

 

[crashtech]

From what I have gathered, homeless advocacy groups may be under pressure to downplay the role drug abuse plays in homelessness, because it's counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve. Society just does not give a shit about drug addicts and doesn't care what happens to them. I don't know what's going to turn that around, or if it can be. I think there are three major themes to tackling the homeless problem, order of importance is secondary:

1. Rediscover a purpose/meaning in life, reconnect with other people.
2. Treatment for substance abuse and mental illness.
3. Affordable housing.

I strongly believe that any one of those is not much good without the others.

 

[Starbuck1975]

NIMBYism isn't the sole cause of the issue of affordable housing. For example, why do all these people want to live in Seattle or San Francisco when there is more affordable housing in other cities not that far from either of those cities?

Because its tolerated and enabled

 

[DrDoug]

Because its tolerated and enabled

You say that it's simply because it's tolerated and enabled. What's your solution? Let's see what you've have got, other than criticism.

 

[fskimospy]

From what I have gathered, homeless advocacy groups may be under pressure to downplay the role drug abuse plays in homelessness, because it's counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve. Society just does not give a shit about drug addicts and doesn't care what happens to them. I don't know what's going to turn that around, or if it can be. I think there are three major themes to tackling the homeless problem, order of importance is secondary:

1. Rediscover a purpose/meaning in life, reconnect with other people.
2. Treatment for substance abuse and mental illness.
3. Affordable housing.

I strongly believe that any one of those is not much good without the others.

Wait, so we aren’t able to take anti-homeless groups word for the cause of homelessness anymore? Who are we supposed to listen to then? What group is okay?

The idea that in order to lessen homelessness that we need to solve ennui, substance abuse, and mental illness is nonsense. We didn’t have them solved ten years ago but our homelessness problem in those cities was considerably less.

We know the answer and it’s one we can do: build, build, build.

 

[Indus]

Seattle's far from dying.. I know atleast 7 people - medical professionals who have moved there in the last 5 years.

I live in NYC.. and NYC has a far bigger homeless problem than Seattle.. yet the city is far from dying.. And the biggest problem is due to rising rents. Here in NYC you can't even get a 1 bedroom under $3000. I suspect Seattle has a similar cause to the homelessness and its too easy to take drugs when things don't go your way.

And OP would love to bash liberals but it's not a liberal or a conservative problem.. The problem is capitalism and the solution is democratic socialism via the green new deal.

1. A job for every American who wants one
2. A living wage for every American who is working to able to afford rent and utilities.
3. Healthcare for every American.

That'll solve just about all the problems listed in this thread.. and we just need to invest in ourselves.

 

[K1052]

We know the answer and it’s one we can do: build, build, build.

Also our desperate need for high quality local and regional transit.

 

[crashtech]

@fskimospy , all I can say is that there are some things that you really can't learn on the web or from books. I think those who have actually interacted extensively with homeless people will know that that problem is just not as simple as you want it to be. But I don't want to argue with you. Housing is important and I'm glad you advocate for it.

 

[fskimospy]

@fskimospy , all I can say is that there are some things that you really can't learn on the web or from books. I think those who have actually interacted extensively with homeless people will know that that problem is just not as simple as you want it to be. But I don't want to argue with you. Housing is important and I'm glad you advocate for it.

I don’t think it’s simple at all because I absolutely agree that mental illness and drug addiction impact homelessness.

What I’m saying is that there are plenty of homeless people today who are neither of those things and building more houses will help thousands and thousands of them.

People think of the homeless as the guy on the street shitting his pants. Some of it is that but plenty of it is just families with children who can’t afford a house anymore.

 

[crashtech]

I don’t think it’s simple at all because I absolutely agree that mental illness and drug addiction impact homelessness.

What I’m saying is that there are plenty of homeless people today who are neither of those things and building more houses will help thousands and thousands of them.

People think of the homeless as the guy on the street shitting his pants. Some of it is that but plenty of it is just families with children who can’t afford a house anymore.

I agree completely. The thing is, the sorts of people who are temporarily homeless due mainly to housing problems generally aren't the ones causing their fellow citizens grief. Perhaps that sounds callous to put other citizen's concerns even as a secondary priority, but quality of life for everyone as well as the increased opportunities for tourism and investment that a clean and peaceful city affords needs to be a consideration. That doesn't mean the short-term homeless shouldn't be helped, but in my experience the long-term homeless nearly always have something else going on that prevents them from leading a normal life and will continue to cause them to have problems with the law and other citizens, even if they were provided with a place to stay.

It might be that a housing-only initiative would help the greatest number of homeless people, but if it doesn't significantly impact the most conspicuous and troublesome minority, it might be seen as a failure anyway.

 

[whm1974]

I agree completely. The thing is, the sorts of people who are temporarily homeless due mainly to housing problems generally aren't the ones causing their fellow citizens grief. Perhaps that sounds callous to put other citizen's concerns even as a secondary priority, but quality of life for everyone as well as the increased opportunities for tourism and investment that a clean and peaceful city affords needs to be a consideration. That doesn't mean the short-term homeless shouldn't be helped, but in my experience the long-term homeless nearly always have something else going on that prevents them from leading a normal life and will continue to cause them to have problems with the law and other citizens, even if they were provided with a place to stay.

It might be that a housing-only initiative would help the greatest number of homeless people, but if it doesn't significantly impact the most conspicuous and troublesome minority, it might be seen as a failure anyway.

A place to stay at least would enable the long-term homeless to get support, of course we would also need to ensure that said support is available and not just warehousing them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You say that it's simply because it's tolerated and enabled. What's your solution? Let's see what you've have got, other than criticism.

I would follow the Nordic, Swiss or German models.

Mandatory military or government volunteer service after high school to level the playing field and instill discipline, purpose and sense of commitment to society, while also breaking down the useless identities that divide us. Kids are less likely to turn to drugs or gangs under this model.

Strong labor unions to protect the middle class.

Investments in education and more importantly retraining for displaced workers.

Corporate tax reform

Investments in sustainable energy.

More low income housing, with matching dollars for transit and education to offset the burden placed on local communities.

Better mental health treatment, especially for veterans and the disabled.

Zero tolerance for crime amongst homeless encampments.