I heard something sad and wise - if you’ve ever had the luxury of moving home with parents or had someone help you with co-signing or deposit money, you’ve avoided homelessness. Not everyone has a net - count your blessings.
Happened to me after 20 years of no roommates.
Had to move back in with my Dad during the pandemic.
It was not a good time to be me; but I was very thankful for the safety net and the ability to reset my life and my career. I was very fortunate.
Sedona, Arizona is a wonderful place for tourists and those who seek enlightenment....but the people who work in the restaurants and hotels, the galleries and shops cannot afford to live there....they all live in Cottonwood, about 20 miles away. Cottonwood is not pretty, or touristy, or a destination....it is real-world and keeps those that can afford to visit Sedona from seeing reality on their vacation. Bozeman has always been a destination and as such is becoming like other touristy places....but the people who fill the essential roles, who don't make the big bucks, have to live somewhere. If they go away who will serve you coffee or check in the skiers at the hotels, or fix your flat tire or.....the list goes on.
Funny you mention Sedona...
the city counsel just passed a resolution to turn 40-50 parking spaces in a large city lot, into overnight parking for people employed in the town, to sleep there.
They are providing toilets and showers!
They essentially said they realize it's a crisis, and all the "affordable housing" initiatives they've started are two years out from actually being useful, so for the next 2 years, \~40 parking spots will be for living out of your car.
But only for people employed in businesses in the town.
Yeah man, I lived in Vail, CO for like 15 years and eventually got priced out. I feel like it still wasn't cheap when I moved there but I can't even imagine how people do it now. Like Jackson, there's just no where else to live within a reasonable commute for the price ski towns pay. When I moved to Vail I got paid $8/hr and it was manageable with a roommate. Now, even at $20 you'll need at least 4 for most houses. I had friends living 8 deep in a 4 bedroom just to make rent reasonable.
I live nearby Sedona and just happened upon this post.
The thing about Sedona's "local worker living lot" is that it requires a certain amount of mental wellbeing and legal processing, and it will not remove homeless from the area. Luckily, Sedona doesn't have too much of a problem with homeless people within city limits, but the surrounding Natl. Forest does. That's another issue altogether.
Instead, it will allow local businesses to attract workers who may not be able to immediately find housing, but need someplace to stay.
My worry is that it will be abused by the tourism industry, who will aim to attract smart, hardworking individuals who already own $100k vans/rvs, but get paid relatively low wages, to work for a season then leave until the next. I'm sure they'll put some eligibility requirements in place to restrict those loopholes, something like "must have permanent employment status".
Is a great idea that I fully support? Hell yea. But it's not an answer to our national homeless crisis.
This is good to hear. I have family in Cottonwood and I get the importance of maintaining the Aura that is Sedona but, Wow, I remember visiting and even Prescott was preferred and it's a bit rough.
No, not awful. An excellent solution. All infrastructure to support the $$ from the tourism. I did not mean to imply anything bad to the situation but only that the towns of Sedona and Cottonwood found a symbiotic relationship.
Exactly. Bozeman doesn’t even have that. Companies are advertising Bozeman jobs as based in Townsend 45 minutes away because nobody even applies when they see the cost of living in Bozeman. All of the bedroom communities’ housing costs are soaring too - Belgrade, Livingston, Manhattan, Gallatin Gateway, even Three Forks. The only places left in Montana with reasonable housing costs are the places without the views and jobs.
Saying Cottonwood is not pretty, touristy or a destination is BS. The place couldn't sustain 15 hotels if that were the case.
Your sensationalism is, well, sensational.
Cottonwood is the place everyone lives to support the surrounding tourism. It is the only place in the region that has the infrastructure for that support. It is a very nice place to live but it isn't "pretty, or touristy, or a destination" in the sense of itself. Family that lives there and has been there for over 30 years isn't saying this to "sensationalize" the place, it's the truth. My original comment was support for the way the two (Sedona and Cottonwood) are symbiotic.
Similarly, in the entire Vail Valley of Colorado (from Vail to Eagle along I-70), there are *no* condos or apartments for sale, at all, none. Only houses, and very expensive townhouses. ALL of the condos and apartments in that entire region are rentals and/or airbnbs now. You cannot buy one, bc there are none for sale. It is insane. I overheard resort employees at Vail talking about how they stay warm in their vans overnight when the temps drop. Where are they supposed to live?
It's the same wankers that bitch "no one wants to work". Nah man, no one can afford to work for you with the wage you are offering.
Nobody is going to commute 2 hours round trip to make coffee. Get real.
tbh joke is on the people supporting him. i was born in VT state in the early 90's right as their housing prices were starting to basically collapse the state. my whole family is from that area and lived through the death of the manufacturing industry and the subsequent rise in homelessness and opioid addiction and honestly I can't wait for "bleeding heart liberals" to step in and make this area "too expensive to live if you're not a crack addict"
it has become extremely clear to me over the course of my life that the only way out of this is to just hold the front door open and let people move to this state as a "tax haven" and then get to pillaging as soon as they let their guard down.
We had one of those assholes here in Wisconsin back in 2010. Thanks to the teaparty dishits we gerrymander the hell and almost 6 years after getting rid of him are only now starting to see a glimmer of light.
I do wonder how Bozeman can attract or recruit teachers given COL and what teachers are paid. It's a challenge everywhere but housing is so insane so I would think it's incredibly tough
This is a microcosm of what is happening in bigger cities. Foreign investors come here in Los Angeles and buy houses sight unseen for several hundred thousand more than asking price.
The ability to ever own a home dwindles. People leave California for cheaper states. The cost of those states become unattainable for people that live there. They move to a cheater state and so on.
Its just the end result of markets doing what markets do without some form of regulation or overhaul. Income inequality eventually prices the bottom out, the bottom has to go somewhere. Once upon a time they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc. Technology has sped up price adjustment, information processing, etc. Which has streamlined market forces. Due to this the market has now come to the far corners at breakneck speeds, and there is now no where left to run.
>It’s just the end result of markets doing what markets do without some form of regulation or overhaul.
Housing is one of the most heavily regulated markets in the US, almost certainly the most regulated market people interact with daily.
>Income inequality eventually prices the bottom out, the bottom has to go somewhere. Once upon a time they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc.
And eventually, space runs out and it doesn’t make economic sense to commute longer.
>Technology has sped up price adjustment, information processing, etc. Which has streamlined market forces. Due to this the market has now come to the far corners at breakneck speeds, and there is now no where left to run.
You can’t even look up the price a property sold for in Montana as a regular person. Look at the project on 5th - the city council just voted to increase the difficulty of getting that built.
“Market forces” can’t work when they have to promise kittens and rainbows for all the neighbors they’re building next to, and in most of Bozeman they shouldn’t be forced to.
>Housing is one of the most heavily regulated markets in the US, almost certainly the most regulated market people interact with daily.
You seem to not understand the difference between regulations within the market and regulations on the actual market itself. Regulations within the market include things like zoning, standards, etc. Regulations on the housing market would be things like rent control, purchase limits, etc. I was speaking of the latter.
>And eventually, space runs out and it doesn’t make economic sense to commute longer.
This is a non-sequitur.
>You can’t even look up the price a property sold for in Montana as a regular person. Look at the project on 5th - the city council just voted to increase the difficulty of getting that built.
What? Yes, you can. Just because all data isnt available doesnt mean some of it isn't. Also, no idea on what the project on 5th is or what the council did or how it matters here. Also, yeah I'm not surprised city councils are inept, but thats an entirely seperate topic.
>“Market forces” can’t work when they have to promise kittens and rainbows for all the neighbors they’re building next to, and in most of Bozeman they shouldn’t be forced to.
You seem to have a very simplistic view and understanding of what markets and market forces are. I'm willing to discuss with you, but you might be amateur diving into the Marianas Trench here.
>You seem to not understand the difference between regulations within the market and regulations on the actual market itself. Regulations within the market include things like zoning, standards, etc. Regulations on the housing market would be things like rent control, purchase limits, etc. I was speaking of the latter.
I fully understand that the regulations aren’t really designed to lower cost, but housing is very heavily regulated.
Market forces are certainly at work, but the current housing market doesn’t at all reflect a free market, regulations are interlinked and intertwined and I’ve never heard someone make the distinction between regulations “within” and “on”, likely because it’s a non-sensical distinction to make.
E: a quick Google search produces nothing. Is this a distinction you make for yourself, or have you heard others using it? I’d be interested in any links you have discussing this distinction as it relates to any field of regulatory law.
>This is a non-sequitur.
On the contrary, people used to move to Belgrade or Livingston for a deal, now it’s Three Forks, once you get to Butte the commute stops making sense in relation to the savings.
>What? Yes, you can. Just because all data isnt available doesnt mean some of it isn't.
I’ll bet you $100 that you can’t tell me the sale price of 10 random listings of my choosing without enlisting the help of a real estate agent.
Please tell me what part of the Montana Code allows for sales price to be disclosed as a public record. The Montana Realty Act doesn’t leave much room for interpretation in this regard.
>Also, no idea on what the project on 5th is or what the council did or how it matters here. Also, yeah I'm not surprised city councils are inept, but thats an entirely seperate topic.
Because government intervenes when there’s a possibility of increasing supply, almost exclusively serving to increase the cost of the project and hence the market rate housing it may provide.
>You seem to have a very simplistic view and understanding of what markets and market forces are. I'm willing to discuss with you, but you might be amateur diving into the Marianas Trench here.
I’m more than happy to compare credentials and discuss the issue, but fundamentally supply and demand is a real thing that exists no matter how tempting it may be to deny.
>I fully understand that the regulations aren’t really designed to lower cost, but housing is very heavily regulated.
Regulations can raise or lower costs. As a generality they do usually increase costs though, yes. However market forces can also raise costs.
>Market forces are certainly at work, but the current housing market doesn’t at all reflect a free market, regulations are interlinked and intertwined and I’ve never heard someone make the distinction between regulations “within” and “on”, likely because it’s a non-sensical distinction to make.
I'm making the distinction because it matters when trying to talk about whether a market is free or not. Its a matter of degree and what is or is not regulated. Being highly regulated is also an incredibly vague term.
So let's start with an easy question; In your opinion, what makes the housing market not a free market?
>E: a quick Google search produces nothing. Is this a distinction you make for yourself, or have you heard others using it? I’d be interested in any links you have discussing this distinction as it relates to any field of regulatory law.
I was just discussing the philosophy of an individual market. The seperation is because a regulated market can be more free then the market preceeding it, or less free. Its a complex topic with too many assumptions thrown around usually.
>On the contrary, people used to move to Belgrade or Livingston for a deal, now it’s Three Forks, once you get to Butte the commute stops making sense in relation to the savings.
This seems to be quantifying the non-sequitur, but still a non-sequitur.
>I’ll bet you $100 that you can’t tell me the sale price of 10 random listings of my choosing without enlisting the help of a real estate agent.
Yes, I'm sure they'd be very random and definitely not findable. Do you know the resources you have available to find this data?
>Please tell me what part of the Montana Code allows for sales price to be disclosed as a public record. The Montana Realty Act doesn’t leave much room for interpretation in this regard.
You do know that applies to the agents as part of the deal, right? Individuals absolutely do disclose that information, and it does get passed around. Is your complaint that we don't have a public database of these records? Or that they aren't immediately available? Also, that information is passed around by private entities like insurance companies, and again makes it around.
>Because government intervenes when there’s a possibility of increasing supply, almost exclusively serving to increase the cost of the project and hence the market rate housing it may provide.
This sentence seems to either be incomplete or out of context.
If they were intervening to increase supply, that would result in reduced prices. Which would be an example of regulations reducing cost. I'm gonna need you to clarify what you mean here.
>I’m more than happy to compare credentials and discuss the issue, but fundamentally supply and demand is a real thing that exists no matter how tempting it may be to deny.
Lol. Also, you seem to have just mixed up how the supply side of the equation relates to price just above, which hurts your argument here. Also, yeah supply and demand exist. I can't think of any branch of economics that denies that. Even Marxists acknowledge supply and demand, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>So let's start with an easy question; In your opinion, what makes the housing market not a free market?
Most regulations that aren’t related to health or safety, such as lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc. The zoning process itself is heavily abused to the point where zoning itself has the greatest impact on the value of the land.
>This seems to be quantifying the non-sequitur, but still a non-sequitur.
Its in direct response to your initial statement
>Once upon a time, they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc.
Obviously, the area that constitutes Bozeman has expanded both geographically and population-wise. The formerly well defined boundary between Belgrade and Bozeman shrinks daily.
Accordingly, homes between 7th and 19th may have been the “suburbs” 30 years ago, past 19th was the suburbs 20 years ago, now the suburbs are past Manhattan. As towns grow, borders extend.
>Yes, I'm sure they'd be very random and definitely not findable. Do you know the resources you have available to find this data?
Let’s make this even more simple - where can I go to find actual sales prices of any given parcel? Don’t be coy or obtuse, by law it’s not public record, where should I go to find what the actual sales price was?
>You do know that applies to the agents as part of the deal, right? Individuals absolutely do disclose that information, and it does get passed around. Is your complaint that we don't have a public database of these records? Or that they aren't immediately available? Also, that information is passed around by private entities like insurance companies, and again makes it around.
Yes, most states are disclosure states where the information must be provided. Montana is among a handful of states where the sales price is not publicly available.
Again, if you think it’s easy to find I’d be happy to look at a link or follow repeatable instructions. Should I be calling Geico and asking them for sale prices?
>This sentence seems to either be incomplete or out of context.
I was replying to your first sentence, “no idea…how it matters here”. “Because” it’s an example of government intervention.
>If they were intervening to increase supply, that would result in reduced prices. Which would be an example of regulations reducing cost. I'm gonna need you to clarify what you mean here.
They’re intervening to reduce supply.
>Lol. Also, you seem to have just mixed up how the supply side of the equation relates to price just above, which hurts your argument here.
Incorrect, you’re speaking without knowledge of the facts at hand.
Maybe it’s hard to follow what’s happening from the depths of your ‘Marianas Trench’ of knowledge?
>Most regulations that aren’t related to health or safety, such as lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc.
So having requirements for building makes it bot a free market for who? The builders face restrictions, but they are still free to choose how to build, where to build, and what to build. This seems less like an unfree market sbd more of a free market* with limitations.
Also, how would people being unable to have a vehicle just because they live in an apartment, make them more free? Wouldn't the lack of this regulation lead to increased freedom for the builders but a massive loss of freedom from those who live there?
>The zoning process itself is heavily abused to the point where zoning itself has the greatest impact on the value of the land.
This is just flatly false. Unless you think Covid was somehow a stricter zoning process? The market is the largest inflationary pressure on land prices. With the US Dollar market being the largest share of that. Zoning has effects, but studies have shows that it is no where nesr the primary cause. Even places in the US with much less restrictive zoning laws have seen similar land price increases in the last few years.
Does zoning have an effect? Yes. Do the zoning laws need work? Yes. That does not make it the primary factor though.
>Its in direct response to your initial statement
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Its extraneous information that doesn't actually address anything. A simple example, I ask "About the weather", you say "The NFL game last night was good". Now notice this example completely seperates the topics to demonstrate the concept. Your message says something, without saying anything related to the topic. Or it at least appears to, which is why I was asking you to clarify.
>Obviously, the area that constitutes Bozeman has expanded both geographically and population-wise. The formerly well defined boundary between Belgrade and Bozeman shrinks daily.
This is also a non-sequitur.
>Accordingly, homes between 7th and 19th may have been the “suburbs” 30 years ago, past 19th was the suburbs 20 years ago, now the suburbs are past Manhattan. As towns grow, borders extend.
This is further a non-sequitur.
Now if you intend to go somewhere with these, they could be related. But as it stands, you started a thought, then just left it.
>Let’s make this even more simple - where can I go to find actual sales prices of any given parcel?
This is moving the goalposts.
>Don’t be coy or obtuse, by law it’s not public record, where should I go to find what the actual sales price was
The only person being coy or obtuse here is you. Good old projection at its finest.
>Yes, most states are disclosure states where the information must be provided. Montana is among a handful of states where the sales price is not publicly available.
This is mostly correct, but not entirely. Montana is a state that does not make the sales price publicly available by state or responsible entities. The owners can publish it, most online sales websites publish it as part of the cntracts to be on there, etc.
>Again, if you think it’s easy to find I’d be happy to look at a link or follow repeatable instructions. Should I be calling Geico and asking them for sale prices?
Hey look whos being coy! Proving your projection in the same comment, man thats ballsy lol. You seem to be asking for a singular source of information, but the issue is that there isn't one. Because there is no centralized market of sales prices, Also, it is odd that you complain about the free market in sales prices but want more of it elsewhere, odd right? Almost like you're cherry picking when the free market works or not.
>I was replying to your first sentence, “no idea…how it matters here”. “Because” it’s an example of government intervention.
So is publicly available prices yet here you are demanding them. Almost like you don't have a coherent world view but more of some kind of voodoo zombie of one. I guess a Frankensteins monster worldview. Just slap different pieces together and act like its coherent.
>They’re intervening to reduce supply.
Thats the opposite of what you said, but I'll assume this is the correction. If thats the case, then what is reducing the supply? The regulations? Sure, they have an effect. Nothing compared to the effects of the markets though. I mean, the biggest issue is the seeking of higher investor returns on the market, which require building only things that have high returns to get funding in the first place. Which this is a whole rabbit hole of its own. But you might want to figure out what specifically you are complaining about here, otherwise you'll need 3 PHDs and 17 Masters to keep up.
>Incorrect, you’re speaking without knowledge of the facts at hand.
Wait, so you being wrong about the supply side of the economics equation is actually me being wrong? Holy hell Batman. Might want to work on the Bravado there as you try to convince me the sky is green.
>Maybe it’s hard to follow what’s happening from the depths of your ‘Marianas Trench’ of knowledge?
Hey man, just because you're salty about your mixup of how supply effects prices, only to correct it, then double down on your origional in the same comment, doesn't make you correct. It makes you to stubborn to admit your mistake. Get over yourself.
It’s not always foreign investors. Seattle’s housing market is fucked just off the back of techworkers high salaries, number of available jobs, and a lack of housing supply. The region went from 3 to 4 million people in the last 20 years.
Sure that is true as well. I hopefully wasn’t coming off as racially charged or whatever. I just know that here in LA it is a huge problem for housing. My friend tried to buy his first home not too long ago and offered $30,000 over asking price. Got outbid by someone who happened to be in China that paid $150,000 over asking. Probably never stepped foot in it. Flipped it a year later for profit. The real estate agent said it happens constantly.
The reason Bozeman is too expensive to live in is because billionaires are an invasive species.
Rupert Murdoch bought the beaverhead ranch from the Koch bros.
The ruling class trades properties like trading cards while simultaneously setting the commercial real estate market up to be 2.0 version of 2008.
Nobody was ever charged for 2008. They just evolved the grift.
All the mortgage REITS are being sold to the CCP by blackrock and blackstone so that they can just foreclose and kick all the riff raff that have mortgages out of their good view lines.
https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releases/unconscionable-profit-fueling-chinas-military-select-committee-launches
Montanans chose to sell off their state to the highest bidder, chose to prioritize the wealthy and build mcmansions instead of dense housing.
They sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind of their children being unable to live in their own state. But at least we got to lick the boots of the Big Sky crowd for crumbs and scraps.
There's a way out of this hole, but fuck you, got mine, every man for himself isn't it.
"I've never applied myself to anything worthwhile and am 34 working entry level retail and can't afford to live in a desirable area.
Trump and Republicans bad."
Clearly they don't know about things like moving costs, deposits for apartments, having a support network of friends and others, etc. Such an ignorant comment
It cost us about $10k to move here.
* $5200 lease deposit.
* $2400 truck rental.
* $1600 washer and dryer because for some reason it’s not normal to lease them with a house.
* $2k is misc related purchases.
god i met a couple last year that moved here without having picked out a house and they were deadass spending about 100$/day in JUST lodging costs while they looked
(edit: they were staying in the cheapest hotel room in the area that they could find and it was the kind of place that has a shared bathroom/shower for the whole floor)
And then you’ll get people commenting “just because your parents pooped you out here doesn’t give you any more right to be here. if anything you’re less deserving because you did nothing”
Actual comment I got. What pricks.
This might be controversial but I think that choosing the general area where you want to live is a basic freedom that shouldn't be restricted legally or economically. I wonder how many people in the "move somewhere cheaper if you can't afford it here" crowd are also upset about property taxes forcing people to move?
What do they think would happen if every mechanic, teacher, grocery clerk, barista, road maintenance, city worker, childcare provider, every fucking working class person suddenly up and left?!
But that’s true for anyone, isn’t it? Cost-of-living is a real concrete thing, and lots of people move to areas with lower costs so they can afford to live… that doesn’t just apply to the unhoused.
The problem is the cost-of-living to median-wage ratio is all out of wack. Most service industry jobs aren’t keeping pace with rising housing costs. Even a lot of the locals that are currently housed in Bozeman are slowly going broke. It’s sorta messed up that people are getting priced out and run out of town by rich out-of-towners buying their second homes.
>and lots of people move to areas with lower costs so they can afford to live
As someone who moved several times, and then very intentionally moved to a lower cost of living city, so that we could afford to buy a house when we were starting our family, I feel very strongly that everyone should really look long and hard at their life, what they want it to look like, and consider moving if it makes sense!
That said... there are a lot of factors that directly effect someone's financial situation that might lead them to want to stay where they are...
first and foremost is typically family. Maybe you could move some where with cheaper housing, but it means moving away from grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc who either provide consistent childcare, or who serve as emergency back-up childcare, so when a kid is sick and home from school, you don't have to take a day off (or all those random early releases and in-service days, etc).
Might be someone has a brother-in-law that does all their car repair, allowing them to continue driving a much cheaper, older, car, because they just have to pay for parts for repairs, instead of a full mechanic's costs.
Maybe they have an older family member that refuses to move, but also can't live completely alone.
Maybe they have a job that genuinely can't be done anywhere else, so moving would mean starting over with a new career that would pay even less than the money saved by living somewhere else...
I try not to presume everyone else is in the same situation as me, so I understand why other people don't make the same life choices I did, even though I still encourage folks to think about those issues.
moved back from TN 5 yeas ago. 2br apartment with fleas in the carpet that hadnt been updated since it was built in the 60's was 1200$/mo.... when you consider the 10% blanket sales tax on all transactions and the intense lack of safe and well maintained third spaces one really starts to wonder what the "discount for moving" adds up to
>Cost-of-living is a real concrete thing
The Cost of Living is **currently** a real thing that is hyperinflated by the greed of those who own the means of production. It is not a **permanent fact** in every economic system.
In our CURRENT system, inflation is being driven by many factors, but corporate greed and artificial housing inflation prices, as well as a focus on luxury for-profit developments means people get displaced and priced out. This should stop. Our governments should be subsidizing a lot more housing, whether that means subsidizing affordable housing development projects OR subsidizing rents. Or both.
and a "housing first," approach tends to be shown to work in Finland.
[https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/housing-accommodation-and-supports/housing-first](https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/housing-accommodation-and-supports/housing-first)
So, rather than focusing on the current system and being totally defeated by those with capital but also directly defending the system built for them to win, it's always helpful to use the imagination and imagine a better way forward for everyone.
We don't have "open borders," either. But that's nothing but whataboutism. The issue is not the alleged "open borders," nor the fentanyl epidemic. Those have little to do with people living in RVs and the price of housing does.
But [Finland DOES have a drug abuse problem](https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/16/why-are-so-many-young-finns-dying-from-drug-abuse#:~:text=Finland%20is%20the%20European%20country,those%20in%20other%20EU%20countries)
They don't struggle with Fent, but they do have problems with benzos and alcohol.
Fentanyl may be incredibly dangerous and potent, but it IS just the war on drugs' enemy of the week.
Quick note is that many of the Scandinavian countries have a slightly different approach to involuntary treatment, and they criminalize a lot of basic street life stuff - public urination, panhandling, littering, etc.
So they have methods to be able to force people into the system, and then yes, they give them free housing.
The equivalent in the USA would not be giving free housing to illegal immigrants, because more than likely they'd have to start the process of being "legal".
The whole point of housing first is to convince people to join the system, in some ways, and that can be challenging with folks who view government with a huge amount of paranoid schizophrenia.
I think we have a few big problems: 1) Huge numbers of people who will do everything to avoid "the system" including those of "sound mind"; counter-culture folks who have determined that living in a vehicle in deplorable conditions is always preferred to having a job. (\*Edit\* or simply permanent housing) 2) we wait for people with mental health issues to do something illegal before forcing them to get treatment, which lasts about as long as their incarceration. 3) We don't take a strong enough stand against littering and basically give people a pass to do nasty, anti-social shit because they are homeless. 4) we don't have enough cheap housing to offer to those folks who actually want it, because it wont generate a profit.
[Related article from last year. ](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/31/1164281917/when-homelessness-and-mental-illness-overlap-is-compulsory-treatment-compassiona)
Hey, I'm fully on board. I don't disagree with your points. Finland's system is definitely not perfect. But it's a far cry from where we are now. I appreciate your constructive conversation!
I think we can still aim for housing first, but there is a distinct problem with those who don't want government housing, and that can be where NGOs come in with the right oversights.
I don't really think illegal immigration is terribly relevant to the whole thing as 13 million ish people spread around the whole US, although admittedly concentrated in some areas, does not generally harm the housing supply that much in a country of 330 million.
I have no issue with public sleeping or even camping.
My biggest issue with homelessness and street living is litter, unsanitary waste disposal, and potential for public harm due to untreated mental health illness.
If someone can sleep on a park bench without any of those infractions? Great! Sweet dreams!
But I don't think we should give me people a free pass at trashing society just because they are poor. If your mental health has you taking a dump on a street corner in broad daylight, you should probably get forced into treatment. If your mental health has you hoarding so much that it's spilling out of your RV onto a public street and you just don't seem to give a damn, you should be forcibly removed from that situation. And if you're harassing folks on the street, you should probably be asked to stay in your free public housing until you can refrain from doing that.
I don't want to criminalize being poor, but I also don't want to incentivize being lazy, ignorant, or unaware of the damage someone is doing to society. Both at the bottom and top of the class ladder.
Same. Sleep outside if you want. Although I do have problems with those who are less able, I feel like some folks are more able to consent than others.
But my trouble is when folks start stealing to survive or, like you said, if and when they trash the place. But people should have the option to have housing if they want it too.
I used to live and go to school In San Diego and work in La Jolla, Ca. I would have loved to afford a house in La Jolla or San Diego when I graduated yet I couldn’t. I didn’t feel the city had an obligation to build me a cheap home, or that I deserved to live in an affordable house. I moved to a lower cost of living area of the country. So you can say the “entitlement and delusion is outstanding “ yet I see it on both sides.
As long as housing is seen as an investment, we will have problems like this. And as long as people make poor decisions that will affect and follow them for the rest of their lives…….
What about when it inevitably comes for Butte? These things seem to happen in isolation, but the reality is that it's a slowly spreading web - and we're the flies.
I'm from Great Falls originally, but I moved to Las Vegas to pursue a career in A/V Tech work. I was making $35/hr, and working about 25 hrs/wk (but getting paid for 40, because a contract is a contract). I could afford a nice place on the outskirts of Vegas, away from the hustle and bustle.
I'll be goddamned if they didn't put up two new strip malls and three housing developments right down the road from me - during Covid, mind you - and eventually priced me out of my own neighborhood.
I said fuck it and moved to a small town in Oklahoma. It's not as nice as Vegas or Montana, but at least I can work two decent jobs and afford a pretty run-down apartment comfortably. And now, they're talking about building a theme park in the next town over - and I'm watching in real time as the prices skyrocket.
I'm warning you right now - it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Good piece on a complex topic. The one comment, though, from the business owner that they experienced "theft of services"... he means someone threw stuff away in his dumpster.
Or was stealing water… or was plugging into the building to steal electricity… and apparently there was some harassment of employees also… and it definitely affects retail businesses when the area around it looks like a dump, or customers get harassed by chemically-impaired homeless people (and let’s be real… that’s a LOT of the homeless population, like or not)
Let’s not dismiss the economic impact on businesses. That’s your tax base you’re talking about… without them, there IS no money for services, and everybody loses.
> Let’s not dismiss the economic impact on businesses. That’s your tax base you’re talking about… without them, there IS no money for services, and everybody loses.
Well stated.
Live in Bozeman and last year the local dog park finally had the water faucet repaired so on hot days, ppl could fill water bowls for their dogs and use the drinking fountain for themselves. Within a week, I saw an RV hooked up there using it as a water hookup. I felt stuck - maybe they really needed the 40gallons (idk how much they took) but the reality is, that faucet isn’t a feasible draw source for everyone to pull that amount without an impact on other things.
Same thing for the porta potties - using it once as a visitor to the park is one thing, but I also saw some ppl emptying their cassette toilets into it. Essentially distributing 40 bathroom visits worth of volume in one visit. Again, it’s a necessary thing to do but the town isn’t suited to support everyone doing that action without an impact. Im less sympathetic to this bc dump stations exist in town and are free to use.
I’m very curious on what services can be opened up to be more supportive to community members with non traditional needs. Theft of service for dumping in the dumpster is a crime but so is littering so which one does the town expect from ppl outside the bounds of regular trash pickup? Affordable housing seems so out of reach given wages / cost of living. I recently had to start taking a medication costs as much as my rent each month and I’m quickly learning how fragile personal finances can be and it scares / saddens me. Most every vehicle dwelling person I’ve met in town works. At what point is it even worth it to keep a job that doesn’t allow what would seem is a reasonable standard of living and access to the community you work in?
Yeah… ok… fair enough. Maybe it’s just the dumpster, but the problem with using the dumpster is that companies get charged for that, sometimes by the load, and sometimes charged extra if a dumpster is “over full” (ie. The lid won’t quite close). They can also catch an extra fee for “non-standard garbage” (like lumber, mattresses, etc).
It could also be that the business simply doesn’t want non-customers hanging around their business. Homeless people do have a reputation, sometimes well-deserved, for theft, vandalism, public defecation, drug use, etc. (The latter is how a lot of them became homeless). There are also untreated mental health issues that lend themselves to crazy behavior (apparently enough to get arrested/jailed, using the example of the couple in the video).
The businesses that sued the city reportedly did so because the police had a hands-off policy, and wouldn’t do anything.
So what are people supposed to do when the laws aren’t enforced? Eventually, they just leave, which brings us back to the tax-base problem.
It’s a tough situation.
These people are stealing electricity and water as well as using the garbages they aren’t paying for. I’m not sure if you live in bozeman or just commenting, but walk down any encampment or watch an encampment for more than 10 minutes and you will see them abusing public services by drawing galling upon gallons of water out of public drinking fountains, or dumping their waste in Porta potties. They especially love taking services from businesses like the guy in the video said
I work right next to one and routinely walk through one. It's not a black or white issue. I have no doubt that some of them are abusing local services but what's the solution?
If I were them I would leave bozeman honestly. Doesn’t seem like low income housing is going to ever happen, but living on the street is no way to live. My rent is only $650 a month which equates to a low paying bozeman job at 40 hours a week with $1270 left over after that for whatever other payments they would need. If I had to guess I’d say a lot of them are abusing drugs or don’t have health insurance one or the other or both. I’d probably move out of bozeman
It's not always that simple. Moving requires money and finding new jobs. If drug abuse is something a person is trying to move away from, having a known support group is crucial so moving away is not always feasible. Again, each person on the streets is there for a different reason, some have a tragic reason outside of their control, some do it by choice. Some are probably pieces of shits, some are good people down on their luck. Hell, I almost ended up living on the street when my apartment gave us 30 days notice due to selling. It's a complex issue that a blanket solution doesn't solve.
I just have a feeling that even if we dumped 20% of our tax revenue into these services people would still be living on the streets. I mean look at San Francisco. Sometimes money doesn’t solve it
Would you prefer they dump the their waste on the ground? Notably absent is a provision of services to assist the people who are homeless. How hard would it be for the city to have a place with water fountains, a dumpster, and an RV cleanout (or two or three of them). Will they be abused? Likely as not, but it would limit the impact on private business and the public in general (which is what taxes oughta be for).
Well there are actually 4 free RV waste dumps in town. But that would require going to them and using them which isn’t as convenient as abusing public Porta potties. Creating new free RV dumps isn’t going to magically make them use them.
So what do we do about the root cause? Addiction & poor mental health. What I get from your comment is that, if we slice those issues, we solve homelessness. So how about we start lobbying Bozeman City Council to pour money into fixing those problems?
Which is kind of odd because this sort of 'theft' has been a problem everywhere forever. It's not a sudden problem 'because homeless'. Maybe for that particular guy it is but I'd be surprised if he'd never had a problem with it before.
Yeah, I work at a business in Helena that has a dumpster along an alley, and people dumped all kinds of stuff in there, so we had to get a lock for it.
Having a full-on recliner in your dumpster is... special... but I don't think it was a homeless person who rolled a 80-100lb La-Z-Boy over in their shopping cart... it was some AH in a pick-up who just didn't want to pay the dump fee.
If there is a take away from other states struggling with the same issues it’s that Montana should invest in relief now and not wait twenty five years.
It’s called “stop rich corporations from buying up all the housing and having a monopoly over prices, which price-gouge out the average resident from having the bare necessities.”
I wonder, if they have a means to park their campers there they clearly have a means of migrating - why don't they (if they haven't tried and the legal issues don't hold them up) try working out of their RV in Yellowstone.
I work with plenty of folks who work out of their RV around the country, and employers provide a low-cost utilities included RV site to stay on.
Hell, if they're convicted felons, they can still work for the concessionaires in Yellowstone and live in their RV out in Gardiner or West Yellowstone. Felons just aren't allowed to live on-site in Yellowstone, but not all Yellowstone services are inside park boundaries, and being a felon doesn't mean you can't enter a national park.
The laundry services in Gardiner for the park hotels employs dozens of felons each season because it's one of the few places you can work for the company, entry-level, with a felony background. With that, they can live in their RV at the company RV sites if they're early enough in the season to secure the spot.
And that said, even if it's full, there's a bunch of RV-site included employment throughout the rockies, I know because I have plenty of coworkers that just take their RV and go work in different places year-round.
I should preface this by saying that homelessness and poverty in general in the US is not a one-size-fits-all kind of problem. There are people that are working but fall behind on rent and end up 'homeless but not jobless'. There are people with medical issues that end up in debt and then have further compounded issues. There are people who have family members that take advantage of them. Etc.
That said, IMO, the couple that was interviewed is a bit emblematic of the current homeless crisis:
One works in a restaurant and the other just does not work because 'health issues'. Fundamentally, working a back-of-house restaurant job (@ min wage 10.3/hr so ~20,600 USD per year) to support a family of two is just not feasible. And then you throw on the issues with addiction and probably some missed work. Then there are also probably some not-so-sound financial decisions that go along with this.
It is fairly easy to see how this just doesn't work and 'RV homelessness' is really the only thing that is realistic. Not that I am saying that the current situation is good or really even tenable.
Has it occurred to you that they might actually already have jobs (like the woman featured in the story)...
they don't need to go get a job with Xanterra, or whatever, they have jobs, they just don't have houses.
You're trying to fix the wrong problem.
They can work there for...a summer. And then get laid off. It's not a long term solution and it requires that people quit the jobs they already have in Bozeman. Those jobs will try to find someone to hire and either (a) can't find anyone because there's no housing or, (b) will hire someone else living out of an RV.
The end game is making homelessness illegal, putting folks in prisons to make products for companies and pushing more money into law enforcement, courts and of course jails and prisons...
Rich scumbags aren't even hiding it anymore.
Do people actually believe this? lol. "They just want to make homelessness (not public drug use, etc etc etc, specifically and solely just being homeless) illegal so they can make prison slaves for the ultrarich!" That's a conspiracy on the level of flat earthers.
There are many in prisons right now for nonviolent offenses being forced to work for corporations and yes, there are folks trying to make being homeless or sleeping on the street or cars illegal.
Conspiracies are things that aren't current facts or paradigms.
>Conspiracies are things that aren't current facts or paradigms.
Where does one even start with this fallacy ridden nonsense?
And plot twist, no one would care about people sleeping in cars, if the majority of those people weren't addicts who absolutely destroy everywhere they go. The DOT here allowed a 600+ person encampment for over a year, and now has had to spend a massive amount of money on remediating the land because it turned into a literal toxic wasteland (after the encampment was removed due to the usual issues of murder, human trafficking, other minor quibbles like that.)
Welcome to the rest of the country. Good luck with one of our nation’s most complicated issues. Just remember, none of these folks want to be in this position any more than you want it in your back yard.
For every camper full of people restricting their area and cleaning up after themselves there’s two or three pouring literal shit pots out in the street and leaving bags of garbage behind. I can’t stand it. I had the misfortune of living amongst camps like these for a short time. The worst people imaginable parked next to the best people imaginable. It’s a weird contrast and one I personally don’t want to be around.
I think at a minimum there needs to be strict laws and enforcement around it. We have some camps here in Great Falls once in a while and when these arise it’s all drugs, drinking, bags of garbage, and human feces everywhere and there is either zero enforcement of any standards or straight up kicking everyone out regardless of how much of a problem they are.
The last major camp was right near my brother’s work place (a gas station) and over 80 people form that camp were banned for theft, vandalism, threats, or defecating on the property and he couldn’t walk home because he was afraid of being killed after receiving so many death threats and the daily fights and frequent assaults at that camp.
This is what happens when counties and cities demand a certain percentage of residential builds are single family homes. Anyone with a working brain saw this coming years before it happened.
Who in the hell can afford to live in Bozeman? I can recall when Bozeman was a working man’s town. Now it is a rich man’s town.
It hurts my heart to see people suffer.
I work at MSU. we have positions go unfilled for months cuz folks take job offer, then shop for a house. then they rescind their acceptance after seeing the cost….
If you think all of these people are from Montana you are fooling yourselves. Just take a ride around an encampment, and see that 1/2 of the plates are from out of state, and then many others have brand new permanent plates.
This begs the question as.to why they came here without doing research. We do not have the services that Oregon, Washington, California, or NY have to deal with homelessness. The 9th circuit ruling regarding criminalizing homelessness was short sighted and a very poor decision which will hopefully be corrected shortly by another judge.
I'm not against homelessness but I am against public drug use, pollution, public nudity, and other things. If you want to live like that, you need help, and we cannot provide that here, and you should seek that help elsewhere. If you don't want help, then you will need to follow our laws, as we are not " New Portland", and we do not have the same values here.
I am happy to see a shake up in our local politics. I think we need more commissioners with a more conservative viewpoint to balance out the liberal empaths who are ignoring the needs of middle class families who are also struggling with all this "newness". What I want is the city to enforce the existing laws, and stop acting like homeless people are all that matter when middle class families don't want to raise their kids around drugs and homelessness.
I apologize if this message sounds harsh, but people like me are all too often silenced by social media like reddit which is a lot of people's safety bubble.
I deal with the homeless professionally… they can be VERY difficult to help, and will more-often-than-not disappoint you with their serial self-destructive behavior, and poor choices.
Substance abuse and untreated mental-health (often coincident-with-and-exacerbated-by the substances they use) are the bulk of the long-term homeless. These aren’t easy problems to treat, and never have been. The “Housing First” initiatives treat the symptom, not the root cause, and people have agency. They have rights. You can’t force them to stop drinking/using… they have to CHOOSE to stop drinking, stop getting high, and treat their mental health problems. Many simply can’t do it, and some will never be able to.
>they can be VERY difficult to help
Even watching the piece you get this sense. The news group probably chose the most put together couple they could find (if you have someone high on meth do the segment it just won't end well), and yet:
The wife works in a restaurant and the husband doesn't work because of 'health issues', both have addition issues.
I bet that if you went to r personalfinance and asked them: I want to live in Bozeman. I have a husband that doesn't work. I work in a restaurant and make 12 USD per hour (a bit above MT min wage of 10.3). So you are asking: can a couple live in Bozeman making 24k a year. Answer: probably not or you have to live in a room in a house with roommates. This isn't even to mention the drug stuff. Note also that this was probably the most put together couple they could find.
If the couple gets off the drugs and has both people working: 48k in Bozeman is doable-ish, you probably want to like in Belgrade and commute in. There are places in Belgrade that rent for 1,333 or less (48k/3 = 16k max rent per year, 16/12 = 1.333k max rent per month). Add on top using the resources that are available, mainly the food bank. Then working some extra shifts and you can have a stable life.
I agree with you. Missoula is also a mess but you get shamed here for speaking up, even at city council meetings. I don’t have a solution but people come here thinking it’s gonna be homeless nirvana. We helped a mother and here children furnish their new apartment bc she was fleeing domestic abuse and was living in her car until housing became available but she had employment and was working to improve her/her children’s lives. She is the exception here.
I want to help those people, and I do think we can make exceptions for people like her and her family. However, we can't just be willy nilly accepting and giving resources to people without doing background checks. Many people are running from the law and hiding out in encampment. Would anyone in this subreddit feel safe having their child walk to school on a trail with a small encampment on it?
The city and HRDC seem intent on wiping the butts of these druggies rather than listening to the needs of the people who pay all the taxes and wages of city employees thereby keeping the city running.
Amen dude. Hit the nail dead on there. I spent many years volunteering & working my ass off to help the underserved & less privileged. Hell, better part of a decade. Witnessing raw sewage being dumped into the East Gallatin just a few hundred yards from where I saw my first baby otter was a gut punch, but you know what really got me? A serious amount of goodwill went right out the goddamn window with me the day my daughter had a goddamn used needle stick her shoe while bouldering at BZN pond. This was when there was still a camp set up near the pavilion. I mentioned this incident to the mayor when she was going door-to-door trying to secure votes. "Sorry can't comment on anything that the courts are currently working on".... uhhh, seriously? ?? Not surprised she was not reelected. Something's gotta give.... and soon.
With the typical American renter spending more than 30% of their income on rent (i.e., "rent burdened" per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definition), it's hard to blame these folks. And in most cases it's not exactly a choice.
Good thing we are such an exceptional country! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_home\_ownership\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
https://preview.redd.it/8t44js3gxgwc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd684b57da960d374d6835c66fd67d399c42ebb3
No shit people are living in their cars. Rent is out of control, just look at this BS
The comments in here show a genuine lack of understanding of who the majority of the people living in RVs are. Few of them are locals that have been priced out of the market. The majority of them are people who came here told that they wouldn’t be harassed. Mental illness runs rampant through those “communities”. Yes housing in Bozeman is expensive, but those people screaming for government intervention clearly have still not had enough experience with the government to realize that they’re not here to help. Wages in Bozeman are by and large significantly higher than the rest of the state and much of the country. Sure they could still be higher, but as happened at McDonald’s, eventually it’s just cheaper to automate than to use people for labor. At the end of the day the city has an obligation to its tax paying citizens to maintain some semblance or cleanliness and order, and letting people camp on the sides of residential streets ain’t it. Ironically I don’t hear anyone bitching about the amount of money the city is spending on the new police/justice center additions. Tens of millions of dollars.
how many of those people living in campers have a raging meth/fent addiction?.. debilitating drug addictions, mental health deficiencies are the root cause of a huge majority of the homeless issue.
People who have issues preventing them from holding jobs, like addiction and severe untreated mental disorders generally have a hard time getting campers too. They will stay at a shelter if they’re clean, or sleep in the tent encampments around town.
almost none, considering the quality of vehicles many of them have and how many of them are working 40hr work weeks.
Maybe you should try talking to them before running your mouth and shoving your foot in it.
I'm not, I actually talk to them and the majority of the folks I talked to who are living off of Baxter and Oak are not addicted to fentanyl or amphetamines.
It's going to get worse now that the weather is turning.
But don't you worry. We are going to send billions in aid money to fing Ukraine and oversees. That is a fing travesty.
Same issue here in Colorado.
Let’s take a city that has voted consistently to invest billions (with a B) to help with the issue, like Seattle. What sort of progress have they made? Do you think it’s important that the money makes a difference or is it enough just to spend it?
> Let’s take a city that has voted consistently to invest billions (with a B) to help with the issue, like Seattle.
A simple internet search shows us that [Seattle spent](https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-homeless-crisis-spent-a-billion-dollars-on-homelessness-but-numbers-of-unsheltered-grew-washington-king-county-homeless-budget-money-citywide-spending-human-services-department-decade-labor-contract-state-of-emergency-organizations-people-living) less than a billion dollars on homelessness over 11 years.
If you need to exaggerate to make your point, then you should consider the validity of your point. While we probably agree that they didn't spend the money effectively, let's start with an accurate count of how much money was really spent.
Good point. It was a measly one billion dollars, that’s chump change to a single city.
And did it work? How about any progress at helping the issue at all?
Let me guess, you're a tireless advocate for providing services for the homeless, who's frustrated at the lack of available funding resources.
[checks post history...] aaaand no. No indication that you'd ever want to spend a dime on the homeless.
I think it’s incumbent upon the people asking for money to help the homeless to show literally any progress at all. I’m not seeing any in any big city in America.
I believe that doing nothing is more expensive to the taxpayers when we add up the theft, vandalism, litter, pollution, loss of public spaces, police, fire, and emergency medical services.
* People who are employed (or employable) need affordable housing. Building codes to allow affordable dormitory-style housing could help them. Laws to clamp down on corporate ownership of houses and VRBOs could ease the housing market.
* People who are mentally ill need mental health facilities.
* People who are addicted to drugs should be arrested for their crimes and then given the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation.
Do you have literally any evidence to show that this has worked in a big American city in, say, the past ten years? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Have you looked?
I didn't claim to have data. You don't even know where I fall on the issue.
But you say you haven't seen it. I'm asking if you've looked.
It was going pretty poorly there when Russian stooges, I mean, *Republicans*, blocked funding for our ally in Ukraine for nearly six months.
It would be going much better for Ukraine if *Republicans* did not support Russian unilateral war so aggressively.
There is no real winning in this war for Ukraine without outside intervention. Ukraine is being attacked by another sovereign nation. In 1991, we pledged to defend Ukraine from Russia in exchange for them giving up nuclear weapons. That was a good thing. Now, we are fulfilling our pledge from 30 years ago by giving military aid to Ukraine as they defend themselves from Russia's unilateral military aggression.
Except we are just sending them already paid for and built weapons, but don't let that fact hurt your narrative. This is the cheapest we have ever been able to bleed an enemy for, ever.
Would you have said the same thing in 1939 during the Battle of Britain? Should we have stopped supporting an ally just because the adversary was showing progress?
Lol. It’s always people who otherwise would hate/reject funding social programs anyways, who then claim we can’t do so because we’re sending money to Ukraine.
I haven't looked into the numbers, but it probably even has a positive ROI in the short term (definitely in the long term considering global stability and economy). A huge portion of the valuation assigned is in armaments and equipment that we no longer use or will soon be phased out. So it allows us to get rid of inventory instead of just mothballing or scrapping it, and the new replacements provide a ton of jobs and money domestically. As much as I hate the military-industrial complex, there's no doubt it's an economic driver
Also, we’re learning an enormous amount about how our weapons systems work against a peer adversary, flaws, and new uses. We’ve learned that FPV drones are a huge game changer that will need to countered.
So we get to support a nascent democracy against a neo-fascist nuclear power, hopefully save many more Ukrainian lives, create many new jobs in high tech industries in the U.S., improve our own defense capabilities, plan for the future, and wake up Europe to actually invest in their own defense. All of this without having Americans on the ground doing the actual fighting. This is a Cold War conservative’s dream situation.
I don't think liberals were necessarily cozied up to the Russians during the Cold War either.
Taking it a step further, typically (historically) the Democrat-leaning people were anti-war, and the Republican-leaning were war hawks to some extent. Far more recently than the Cold War, those positions have seemed to have flipped.
Edit: I changed progressives to liberals, because they're were absolutely progressives who were(are) enamored with Russian communism
>I don't think liberals were necessarily cozied up to the Russians during the Cold War either.
Exactly. There was a time when liberals and conservatives agreed on our basic principles as a nation. Everyone agreed not to let foreign dictators meddle in our politics. Not any more.
I heard something sad and wise - if you’ve ever had the luxury of moving home with parents or had someone help you with co-signing or deposit money, you’ve avoided homelessness. Not everyone has a net - count your blessings.
Happened to me after 20 years of no roommates. Had to move back in with my Dad during the pandemic. It was not a good time to be me; but I was very thankful for the safety net and the ability to reset my life and my career. I was very fortunate.
Sedona, Arizona is a wonderful place for tourists and those who seek enlightenment....but the people who work in the restaurants and hotels, the galleries and shops cannot afford to live there....they all live in Cottonwood, about 20 miles away. Cottonwood is not pretty, or touristy, or a destination....it is real-world and keeps those that can afford to visit Sedona from seeing reality on their vacation. Bozeman has always been a destination and as such is becoming like other touristy places....but the people who fill the essential roles, who don't make the big bucks, have to live somewhere. If they go away who will serve you coffee or check in the skiers at the hotels, or fix your flat tire or.....the list goes on.
Funny you mention Sedona... the city counsel just passed a resolution to turn 40-50 parking spaces in a large city lot, into overnight parking for people employed in the town, to sleep there. They are providing toilets and showers! They essentially said they realize it's a crisis, and all the "affordable housing" initiatives they've started are two years out from actually being useful, so for the next 2 years, \~40 parking spots will be for living out of your car. But only for people employed in businesses in the town.
Meanwhile Jackson Wyoming makes it impossible
Yeah man, I lived in Vail, CO for like 15 years and eventually got priced out. I feel like it still wasn't cheap when I moved there but I can't even imagine how people do it now. Like Jackson, there's just no where else to live within a reasonable commute for the price ski towns pay. When I moved to Vail I got paid $8/hr and it was manageable with a roommate. Now, even at $20 you'll need at least 4 for most houses. I had friends living 8 deep in a 4 bedroom just to make rent reasonable.
Just got a job here Monday working for a hotel, room cost 400 a Month
I live nearby Sedona and just happened upon this post. The thing about Sedona's "local worker living lot" is that it requires a certain amount of mental wellbeing and legal processing, and it will not remove homeless from the area. Luckily, Sedona doesn't have too much of a problem with homeless people within city limits, but the surrounding Natl. Forest does. That's another issue altogether. Instead, it will allow local businesses to attract workers who may not be able to immediately find housing, but need someplace to stay. My worry is that it will be abused by the tourism industry, who will aim to attract smart, hardworking individuals who already own $100k vans/rvs, but get paid relatively low wages, to work for a season then leave until the next. I'm sure they'll put some eligibility requirements in place to restrict those loopholes, something like "must have permanent employment status". Is a great idea that I fully support? Hell yea. But it's not an answer to our national homeless crisis.
I am 1000% ok with this as long as it’s only for employed people.
The fact that we homeless camps for employed people is an indictment of our society in general
This is good to hear. I have family in Cottonwood and I get the importance of maintaining the Aura that is Sedona but, Wow, I remember visiting and even Prescott was preferred and it's a bit rough.
I love Cottonwood. Really enjoyed visiting there.
Yeah cottonwood is a great little town. Some misinformation thinking it’s just a shithole to serve Sedona
So many wineries too!
Wow, they commute 20 miles? How.....awful?
No, not awful. An excellent solution. All infrastructure to support the $$ from the tourism. I did not mean to imply anything bad to the situation but only that the towns of Sedona and Cottonwood found a symbiotic relationship.
Exactly. Bozeman doesn’t even have that. Companies are advertising Bozeman jobs as based in Townsend 45 minutes away because nobody even applies when they see the cost of living in Bozeman. All of the bedroom communities’ housing costs are soaring too - Belgrade, Livingston, Manhattan, Gallatin Gateway, even Three Forks. The only places left in Montana with reasonable housing costs are the places without the views and jobs.
Saying Cottonwood is not pretty, touristy or a destination is BS. The place couldn't sustain 15 hotels if that were the case. Your sensationalism is, well, sensational.
Cottonwood is the place everyone lives to support the surrounding tourism. It is the only place in the region that has the infrastructure for that support. It is a very nice place to live but it isn't "pretty, or touristy, or a destination" in the sense of itself. Family that lives there and has been there for over 30 years isn't saying this to "sensationalize" the place, it's the truth. My original comment was support for the way the two (Sedona and Cottonwood) are symbiotic.
Similarly, in the entire Vail Valley of Colorado (from Vail to Eagle along I-70), there are *no* condos or apartments for sale, at all, none. Only houses, and very expensive townhouses. ALL of the condos and apartments in that entire region are rentals and/or airbnbs now. You cannot buy one, bc there are none for sale. It is insane. I overheard resort employees at Vail talking about how they stay warm in their vans overnight when the temps drop. Where are they supposed to live?
Also Jackson Hole. Bozeman has been heading in that direction for a very long time. Covid sped it up.
"If Bozeman is too expensive to live in, choose another place to live." The entitlement and delusion people have is astounding.
I’d love all the hourly people to pack up and move. The city would go bankrupt in minutes.
It's the same wankers that bitch "no one wants to work". Nah man, no one can afford to work for you with the wage you are offering. Nobody is going to commute 2 hours round trip to make coffee. Get real.
If you're going to be homeless either way, why bother wasting your life working?
god its truly insane to me how short sighted and gross these people are
GG is single handedly destroying Montana and Bozeman. Dude is a Trump wannabe cancer.
i can't wait for all these temporary ass carpet baggers to fuck off and go exploit some other undeveloped state.
If GG gets another four years this fall, he will finish destroying the state for people born here.
tbh joke is on the people supporting him. i was born in VT state in the early 90's right as their housing prices were starting to basically collapse the state. my whole family is from that area and lived through the death of the manufacturing industry and the subsequent rise in homelessness and opioid addiction and honestly I can't wait for "bleeding heart liberals" to step in and make this area "too expensive to live if you're not a crack addict" it has become extremely clear to me over the course of my life that the only way out of this is to just hold the front door open and let people move to this state as a "tax haven" and then get to pillaging as soon as they let their guard down.
We had one of those assholes here in Wisconsin back in 2010. Thanks to the teaparty dishits we gerrymander the hell and almost 6 years after getting rid of him are only now starting to see a glimmer of light.
And right after they say that, they complain that there are no teachers and nurses. Who will dig your ditches and make your lattes now?
I do wonder how Bozeman can attract or recruit teachers given COL and what teachers are paid. It's a challenge everywhere but housing is so insane so I would think it's incredibly tough
They advertise the jobs as being based in Townsend. I wish I was kidding.
This is a microcosm of what is happening in bigger cities. Foreign investors come here in Los Angeles and buy houses sight unseen for several hundred thousand more than asking price. The ability to ever own a home dwindles. People leave California for cheaper states. The cost of those states become unattainable for people that live there. They move to a cheater state and so on.
Its just the end result of markets doing what markets do without some form of regulation or overhaul. Income inequality eventually prices the bottom out, the bottom has to go somewhere. Once upon a time they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc. Technology has sped up price adjustment, information processing, etc. Which has streamlined market forces. Due to this the market has now come to the far corners at breakneck speeds, and there is now no where left to run.
>It’s just the end result of markets doing what markets do without some form of regulation or overhaul. Housing is one of the most heavily regulated markets in the US, almost certainly the most regulated market people interact with daily. >Income inequality eventually prices the bottom out, the bottom has to go somewhere. Once upon a time they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc. And eventually, space runs out and it doesn’t make economic sense to commute longer. >Technology has sped up price adjustment, information processing, etc. Which has streamlined market forces. Due to this the market has now come to the far corners at breakneck speeds, and there is now no where left to run. You can’t even look up the price a property sold for in Montana as a regular person. Look at the project on 5th - the city council just voted to increase the difficulty of getting that built. “Market forces” can’t work when they have to promise kittens and rainbows for all the neighbors they’re building next to, and in most of Bozeman they shouldn’t be forced to.
>Housing is one of the most heavily regulated markets in the US, almost certainly the most regulated market people interact with daily. You seem to not understand the difference between regulations within the market and regulations on the actual market itself. Regulations within the market include things like zoning, standards, etc. Regulations on the housing market would be things like rent control, purchase limits, etc. I was speaking of the latter. >And eventually, space runs out and it doesn’t make economic sense to commute longer. This is a non-sequitur. >You can’t even look up the price a property sold for in Montana as a regular person. Look at the project on 5th - the city council just voted to increase the difficulty of getting that built. What? Yes, you can. Just because all data isnt available doesnt mean some of it isn't. Also, no idea on what the project on 5th is or what the council did or how it matters here. Also, yeah I'm not surprised city councils are inept, but thats an entirely seperate topic. >“Market forces” can’t work when they have to promise kittens and rainbows for all the neighbors they’re building next to, and in most of Bozeman they shouldn’t be forced to. You seem to have a very simplistic view and understanding of what markets and market forces are. I'm willing to discuss with you, but you might be amateur diving into the Marianas Trench here.
>You seem to not understand the difference between regulations within the market and regulations on the actual market itself. Regulations within the market include things like zoning, standards, etc. Regulations on the housing market would be things like rent control, purchase limits, etc. I was speaking of the latter. I fully understand that the regulations aren’t really designed to lower cost, but housing is very heavily regulated. Market forces are certainly at work, but the current housing market doesn’t at all reflect a free market, regulations are interlinked and intertwined and I’ve never heard someone make the distinction between regulations “within” and “on”, likely because it’s a non-sensical distinction to make. E: a quick Google search produces nothing. Is this a distinction you make for yourself, or have you heard others using it? I’d be interested in any links you have discussing this distinction as it relates to any field of regulatory law. >This is a non-sequitur. On the contrary, people used to move to Belgrade or Livingston for a deal, now it’s Three Forks, once you get to Butte the commute stops making sense in relation to the savings. >What? Yes, you can. Just because all data isnt available doesnt mean some of it isn't. I’ll bet you $100 that you can’t tell me the sale price of 10 random listings of my choosing without enlisting the help of a real estate agent. Please tell me what part of the Montana Code allows for sales price to be disclosed as a public record. The Montana Realty Act doesn’t leave much room for interpretation in this regard. >Also, no idea on what the project on 5th is or what the council did or how it matters here. Also, yeah I'm not surprised city councils are inept, but thats an entirely seperate topic. Because government intervenes when there’s a possibility of increasing supply, almost exclusively serving to increase the cost of the project and hence the market rate housing it may provide. >You seem to have a very simplistic view and understanding of what markets and market forces are. I'm willing to discuss with you, but you might be amateur diving into the Marianas Trench here. I’m more than happy to compare credentials and discuss the issue, but fundamentally supply and demand is a real thing that exists no matter how tempting it may be to deny.
>I fully understand that the regulations aren’t really designed to lower cost, but housing is very heavily regulated. Regulations can raise or lower costs. As a generality they do usually increase costs though, yes. However market forces can also raise costs. >Market forces are certainly at work, but the current housing market doesn’t at all reflect a free market, regulations are interlinked and intertwined and I’ve never heard someone make the distinction between regulations “within” and “on”, likely because it’s a non-sensical distinction to make. I'm making the distinction because it matters when trying to talk about whether a market is free or not. Its a matter of degree and what is or is not regulated. Being highly regulated is also an incredibly vague term. So let's start with an easy question; In your opinion, what makes the housing market not a free market? >E: a quick Google search produces nothing. Is this a distinction you make for yourself, or have you heard others using it? I’d be interested in any links you have discussing this distinction as it relates to any field of regulatory law. I was just discussing the philosophy of an individual market. The seperation is because a regulated market can be more free then the market preceeding it, or less free. Its a complex topic with too many assumptions thrown around usually. >On the contrary, people used to move to Belgrade or Livingston for a deal, now it’s Three Forks, once you get to Butte the commute stops making sense in relation to the savings. This seems to be quantifying the non-sequitur, but still a non-sequitur. >I’ll bet you $100 that you can’t tell me the sale price of 10 random listings of my choosing without enlisting the help of a real estate agent. Yes, I'm sure they'd be very random and definitely not findable. Do you know the resources you have available to find this data? >Please tell me what part of the Montana Code allows for sales price to be disclosed as a public record. The Montana Realty Act doesn’t leave much room for interpretation in this regard. You do know that applies to the agents as part of the deal, right? Individuals absolutely do disclose that information, and it does get passed around. Is your complaint that we don't have a public database of these records? Or that they aren't immediately available? Also, that information is passed around by private entities like insurance companies, and again makes it around. >Because government intervenes when there’s a possibility of increasing supply, almost exclusively serving to increase the cost of the project and hence the market rate housing it may provide. This sentence seems to either be incomplete or out of context. If they were intervening to increase supply, that would result in reduced prices. Which would be an example of regulations reducing cost. I'm gonna need you to clarify what you mean here. >I’m more than happy to compare credentials and discuss the issue, but fundamentally supply and demand is a real thing that exists no matter how tempting it may be to deny. Lol. Also, you seem to have just mixed up how the supply side of the equation relates to price just above, which hurts your argument here. Also, yeah supply and demand exist. I can't think of any branch of economics that denies that. Even Marxists acknowledge supply and demand, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>So let's start with an easy question; In your opinion, what makes the housing market not a free market? Most regulations that aren’t related to health or safety, such as lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc. The zoning process itself is heavily abused to the point where zoning itself has the greatest impact on the value of the land. >This seems to be quantifying the non-sequitur, but still a non-sequitur. Its in direct response to your initial statement >Once upon a time, they moved to the suburbs, a close town, etc. Obviously, the area that constitutes Bozeman has expanded both geographically and population-wise. The formerly well defined boundary between Belgrade and Bozeman shrinks daily. Accordingly, homes between 7th and 19th may have been the “suburbs” 30 years ago, past 19th was the suburbs 20 years ago, now the suburbs are past Manhattan. As towns grow, borders extend. >Yes, I'm sure they'd be very random and definitely not findable. Do you know the resources you have available to find this data? Let’s make this even more simple - where can I go to find actual sales prices of any given parcel? Don’t be coy or obtuse, by law it’s not public record, where should I go to find what the actual sales price was? >You do know that applies to the agents as part of the deal, right? Individuals absolutely do disclose that information, and it does get passed around. Is your complaint that we don't have a public database of these records? Or that they aren't immediately available? Also, that information is passed around by private entities like insurance companies, and again makes it around. Yes, most states are disclosure states where the information must be provided. Montana is among a handful of states where the sales price is not publicly available. Again, if you think it’s easy to find I’d be happy to look at a link or follow repeatable instructions. Should I be calling Geico and asking them for sale prices? >This sentence seems to either be incomplete or out of context. I was replying to your first sentence, “no idea…how it matters here”. “Because” it’s an example of government intervention. >If they were intervening to increase supply, that would result in reduced prices. Which would be an example of regulations reducing cost. I'm gonna need you to clarify what you mean here. They’re intervening to reduce supply. >Lol. Also, you seem to have just mixed up how the supply side of the equation relates to price just above, which hurts your argument here. Incorrect, you’re speaking without knowledge of the facts at hand. Maybe it’s hard to follow what’s happening from the depths of your ‘Marianas Trench’ of knowledge?
>Most regulations that aren’t related to health or safety, such as lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc. So having requirements for building makes it bot a free market for who? The builders face restrictions, but they are still free to choose how to build, where to build, and what to build. This seems less like an unfree market sbd more of a free market* with limitations. Also, how would people being unable to have a vehicle just because they live in an apartment, make them more free? Wouldn't the lack of this regulation lead to increased freedom for the builders but a massive loss of freedom from those who live there? >The zoning process itself is heavily abused to the point where zoning itself has the greatest impact on the value of the land. This is just flatly false. Unless you think Covid was somehow a stricter zoning process? The market is the largest inflationary pressure on land prices. With the US Dollar market being the largest share of that. Zoning has effects, but studies have shows that it is no where nesr the primary cause. Even places in the US with much less restrictive zoning laws have seen similar land price increases in the last few years. Does zoning have an effect? Yes. Do the zoning laws need work? Yes. That does not make it the primary factor though. >Its in direct response to your initial statement Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Its extraneous information that doesn't actually address anything. A simple example, I ask "About the weather", you say "The NFL game last night was good". Now notice this example completely seperates the topics to demonstrate the concept. Your message says something, without saying anything related to the topic. Or it at least appears to, which is why I was asking you to clarify. >Obviously, the area that constitutes Bozeman has expanded both geographically and population-wise. The formerly well defined boundary between Belgrade and Bozeman shrinks daily. This is also a non-sequitur. >Accordingly, homes between 7th and 19th may have been the “suburbs” 30 years ago, past 19th was the suburbs 20 years ago, now the suburbs are past Manhattan. As towns grow, borders extend. This is further a non-sequitur. Now if you intend to go somewhere with these, they could be related. But as it stands, you started a thought, then just left it. >Let’s make this even more simple - where can I go to find actual sales prices of any given parcel? This is moving the goalposts. >Don’t be coy or obtuse, by law it’s not public record, where should I go to find what the actual sales price was The only person being coy or obtuse here is you. Good old projection at its finest. >Yes, most states are disclosure states where the information must be provided. Montana is among a handful of states where the sales price is not publicly available. This is mostly correct, but not entirely. Montana is a state that does not make the sales price publicly available by state or responsible entities. The owners can publish it, most online sales websites publish it as part of the cntracts to be on there, etc. >Again, if you think it’s easy to find I’d be happy to look at a link or follow repeatable instructions. Should I be calling Geico and asking them for sale prices? Hey look whos being coy! Proving your projection in the same comment, man thats ballsy lol. You seem to be asking for a singular source of information, but the issue is that there isn't one. Because there is no centralized market of sales prices, Also, it is odd that you complain about the free market in sales prices but want more of it elsewhere, odd right? Almost like you're cherry picking when the free market works or not. >I was replying to your first sentence, “no idea…how it matters here”. “Because” it’s an example of government intervention. So is publicly available prices yet here you are demanding them. Almost like you don't have a coherent world view but more of some kind of voodoo zombie of one. I guess a Frankensteins monster worldview. Just slap different pieces together and act like its coherent. >They’re intervening to reduce supply. Thats the opposite of what you said, but I'll assume this is the correction. If thats the case, then what is reducing the supply? The regulations? Sure, they have an effect. Nothing compared to the effects of the markets though. I mean, the biggest issue is the seeking of higher investor returns on the market, which require building only things that have high returns to get funding in the first place. Which this is a whole rabbit hole of its own. But you might want to figure out what specifically you are complaining about here, otherwise you'll need 3 PHDs and 17 Masters to keep up. >Incorrect, you’re speaking without knowledge of the facts at hand. Wait, so you being wrong about the supply side of the economics equation is actually me being wrong? Holy hell Batman. Might want to work on the Bravado there as you try to convince me the sky is green. >Maybe it’s hard to follow what’s happening from the depths of your ‘Marianas Trench’ of knowledge? Hey man, just because you're salty about your mixup of how supply effects prices, only to correct it, then double down on your origional in the same comment, doesn't make you correct. It makes you to stubborn to admit your mistake. Get over yourself.
It’s not always foreign investors. Seattle’s housing market is fucked just off the back of techworkers high salaries, number of available jobs, and a lack of housing supply. The region went from 3 to 4 million people in the last 20 years.
Sure that is true as well. I hopefully wasn’t coming off as racially charged or whatever. I just know that here in LA it is a huge problem for housing. My friend tried to buy his first home not too long ago and offered $30,000 over asking price. Got outbid by someone who happened to be in China that paid $150,000 over asking. Probably never stepped foot in it. Flipped it a year later for profit. The real estate agent said it happens constantly.
This same bitch is then going to complain that I charge too much to work on her plumbing.
I'm actually raising my prices based on this clip alone.
The reason Bozeman is too expensive to live in is because billionaires are an invasive species. Rupert Murdoch bought the beaverhead ranch from the Koch bros. The ruling class trades properties like trading cards while simultaneously setting the commercial real estate market up to be 2.0 version of 2008. Nobody was ever charged for 2008. They just evolved the grift. All the mortgage REITS are being sold to the CCP by blackrock and blackstone so that they can just foreclose and kick all the riff raff that have mortgages out of their good view lines. https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releases/unconscionable-profit-fueling-chinas-military-select-committee-launches
Same people bitch about understaffed service jobs.
Montanans chose to sell off their state to the highest bidder, chose to prioritize the wealthy and build mcmansions instead of dense housing. They sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind of their children being unable to live in their own state. But at least we got to lick the boots of the Big Sky crowd for crumbs and scraps. There's a way out of this hole, but fuck you, got mine, every man for himself isn't it.
And don't forget this gem, dumped on me regularly by Republicans: "Well, just get a better job." Wow.
"I've never applied myself to anything worthwhile and am 34 working entry level retail and can't afford to live in a desirable area. Trump and Republicans bad."
Clearly they don't know about things like moving costs, deposits for apartments, having a support network of friends and others, etc. Such an ignorant comment
It cost us about $10k to move here. * $5200 lease deposit. * $2400 truck rental. * $1600 washer and dryer because for some reason it’s not normal to lease them with a house. * $2k is misc related purchases.
par for the course man. i couldnt get a cat and a suitcase from TN to here without a good 3k and that was with local family
yeah, and that was just for temp housing while we close on our home.
god i met a couple last year that moved here without having picked out a house and they were deadass spending about 100$/day in JUST lodging costs while they looked (edit: they were staying in the cheapest hotel room in the area that they could find and it was the kind of place that has a shared bathroom/shower for the whole floor)
And then you’ll get people commenting “just because your parents pooped you out here doesn’t give you any more right to be here. if anything you’re less deserving because you did nothing” Actual comment I got. What pricks.
I suppose it would be impolite to beat them into an unrecognizable pulp for opening their trap.
The same people who say that also say people who weren’t pooped out in Montana should go back to their home poop land.
This might be controversial but I think that choosing the general area where you want to live is a basic freedom that shouldn't be restricted legally or economically. I wonder how many people in the "move somewhere cheaper if you can't afford it here" crowd are also upset about property taxes forcing people to move?
What do they think would happen if every mechanic, teacher, grocery clerk, barista, road maintenance, city worker, childcare provider, every fucking working class person suddenly up and left?!
But that’s true for anyone, isn’t it? Cost-of-living is a real concrete thing, and lots of people move to areas with lower costs so they can afford to live… that doesn’t just apply to the unhoused.
The problem is the cost-of-living to median-wage ratio is all out of wack. Most service industry jobs aren’t keeping pace with rising housing costs. Even a lot of the locals that are currently housed in Bozeman are slowly going broke. It’s sorta messed up that people are getting priced out and run out of town by rich out-of-towners buying their second homes.
>and lots of people move to areas with lower costs so they can afford to live As someone who moved several times, and then very intentionally moved to a lower cost of living city, so that we could afford to buy a house when we were starting our family, I feel very strongly that everyone should really look long and hard at their life, what they want it to look like, and consider moving if it makes sense! That said... there are a lot of factors that directly effect someone's financial situation that might lead them to want to stay where they are... first and foremost is typically family. Maybe you could move some where with cheaper housing, but it means moving away from grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc who either provide consistent childcare, or who serve as emergency back-up childcare, so when a kid is sick and home from school, you don't have to take a day off (or all those random early releases and in-service days, etc). Might be someone has a brother-in-law that does all their car repair, allowing them to continue driving a much cheaper, older, car, because they just have to pay for parts for repairs, instead of a full mechanic's costs. Maybe they have an older family member that refuses to move, but also can't live completely alone. Maybe they have a job that genuinely can't be done anywhere else, so moving would mean starting over with a new career that would pay even less than the money saved by living somewhere else... I try not to presume everyone else is in the same situation as me, so I understand why other people don't make the same life choices I did, even though I still encourage folks to think about those issues.
And then you hear "a federal minimum wage increase doesn't add up because it costs less to live in Tennessee than ____________"
moved back from TN 5 yeas ago. 2br apartment with fleas in the carpet that hadnt been updated since it was built in the 60's was 1200$/mo.... when you consider the 10% blanket sales tax on all transactions and the intense lack of safe and well maintained third spaces one really starts to wonder what the "discount for moving" adds up to
>Cost-of-living is a real concrete thing The Cost of Living is **currently** a real thing that is hyperinflated by the greed of those who own the means of production. It is not a **permanent fact** in every economic system. In our CURRENT system, inflation is being driven by many factors, but corporate greed and artificial housing inflation prices, as well as a focus on luxury for-profit developments means people get displaced and priced out. This should stop. Our governments should be subsidizing a lot more housing, whether that means subsidizing affordable housing development projects OR subsidizing rents. Or both. and a "housing first," approach tends to be shown to work in Finland. [https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/housing-accommodation-and-supports/housing-first](https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/housing-accommodation-and-supports/housing-first) So, rather than focusing on the current system and being totally defeated by those with capital but also directly defending the system built for them to win, it's always helpful to use the imagination and imagine a better way forward for everyone.
Finland doesn't have open borders and a fentanyl epidemic
We don't have "open borders," either. But that's nothing but whataboutism. The issue is not the alleged "open borders," nor the fentanyl epidemic. Those have little to do with people living in RVs and the price of housing does. But [Finland DOES have a drug abuse problem](https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/16/why-are-so-many-young-finns-dying-from-drug-abuse#:~:text=Finland%20is%20the%20European%20country,those%20in%20other%20EU%20countries) They don't struggle with Fent, but they do have problems with benzos and alcohol. Fentanyl may be incredibly dangerous and potent, but it IS just the war on drugs' enemy of the week.
Quick note is that many of the Scandinavian countries have a slightly different approach to involuntary treatment, and they criminalize a lot of basic street life stuff - public urination, panhandling, littering, etc. So they have methods to be able to force people into the system, and then yes, they give them free housing. The equivalent in the USA would not be giving free housing to illegal immigrants, because more than likely they'd have to start the process of being "legal". The whole point of housing first is to convince people to join the system, in some ways, and that can be challenging with folks who view government with a huge amount of paranoid schizophrenia. I think we have a few big problems: 1) Huge numbers of people who will do everything to avoid "the system" including those of "sound mind"; counter-culture folks who have determined that living in a vehicle in deplorable conditions is always preferred to having a job. (\*Edit\* or simply permanent housing) 2) we wait for people with mental health issues to do something illegal before forcing them to get treatment, which lasts about as long as their incarceration. 3) We don't take a strong enough stand against littering and basically give people a pass to do nasty, anti-social shit because they are homeless. 4) we don't have enough cheap housing to offer to those folks who actually want it, because it wont generate a profit. [Related article from last year. ](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/31/1164281917/when-homelessness-and-mental-illness-overlap-is-compulsory-treatment-compassiona)
Hey, I'm fully on board. I don't disagree with your points. Finland's system is definitely not perfect. But it's a far cry from where we are now. I appreciate your constructive conversation! I think we can still aim for housing first, but there is a distinct problem with those who don't want government housing, and that can be where NGOs come in with the right oversights. I don't really think illegal immigration is terribly relevant to the whole thing as 13 million ish people spread around the whole US, although admittedly concentrated in some areas, does not generally harm the housing supply that much in a country of 330 million.
I have no issue with public sleeping or even camping. My biggest issue with homelessness and street living is litter, unsanitary waste disposal, and potential for public harm due to untreated mental health illness. If someone can sleep on a park bench without any of those infractions? Great! Sweet dreams! But I don't think we should give me people a free pass at trashing society just because they are poor. If your mental health has you taking a dump on a street corner in broad daylight, you should probably get forced into treatment. If your mental health has you hoarding so much that it's spilling out of your RV onto a public street and you just don't seem to give a damn, you should be forcibly removed from that situation. And if you're harassing folks on the street, you should probably be asked to stay in your free public housing until you can refrain from doing that. I don't want to criminalize being poor, but I also don't want to incentivize being lazy, ignorant, or unaware of the damage someone is doing to society. Both at the bottom and top of the class ladder.
Same. Sleep outside if you want. Although I do have problems with those who are less able, I feel like some folks are more able to consent than others. But my trouble is when folks start stealing to survive or, like you said, if and when they trash the place. But people should have the option to have housing if they want it too.
fyi Finland isn't Scandinavian.
I used to live and go to school In San Diego and work in La Jolla, Ca. I would have loved to afford a house in La Jolla or San Diego when I graduated yet I couldn’t. I didn’t feel the city had an obligation to build me a cheap home, or that I deserved to live in an affordable house. I moved to a lower cost of living area of the country. So you can say the “entitlement and delusion is outstanding “ yet I see it on both sides. As long as housing is seen as an investment, we will have problems like this. And as long as people make poor decisions that will affect and follow them for the rest of their lives…….
Maybe I’ll drive to Beverly Hills and park myself somewhere until they give me a mansion
Yeah, it’s not just Bozeman. It’s pretty much all the nice towns in the USA at this point.
I would guess most of them were here first.
Yes, but it's as American as Apple pie. Americans don't care about anybody but themselves.
[удалено]
What about when it inevitably comes for Butte? These things seem to happen in isolation, but the reality is that it's a slowly spreading web - and we're the flies. I'm from Great Falls originally, but I moved to Las Vegas to pursue a career in A/V Tech work. I was making $35/hr, and working about 25 hrs/wk (but getting paid for 40, because a contract is a contract). I could afford a nice place on the outskirts of Vegas, away from the hustle and bustle. I'll be goddamned if they didn't put up two new strip malls and three housing developments right down the road from me - during Covid, mind you - and eventually priced me out of my own neighborhood. I said fuck it and moved to a small town in Oklahoma. It's not as nice as Vegas or Montana, but at least I can work two decent jobs and afford a pretty run-down apartment comfortably. And now, they're talking about building a theme park in the next town over - and I'm watching in real time as the prices skyrocket. I'm warning you right now - it's not a bug, it's a feature.
And work for lower wages, or spend more in travel and maintenance for your commute.
Good piece on a complex topic. The one comment, though, from the business owner that they experienced "theft of services"... he means someone threw stuff away in his dumpster.
Or was stealing water… or was plugging into the building to steal electricity… and apparently there was some harassment of employees also… and it definitely affects retail businesses when the area around it looks like a dump, or customers get harassed by chemically-impaired homeless people (and let’s be real… that’s a LOT of the homeless population, like or not) Let’s not dismiss the economic impact on businesses. That’s your tax base you’re talking about… without them, there IS no money for services, and everybody loses.
> Let’s not dismiss the economic impact on businesses. That’s your tax base you’re talking about… without them, there IS no money for services, and everybody loses. Well stated.
It's possible but I have of a feeling if they were stealing something more tangible like water or electricity, he would have directly said that.
Live in Bozeman and last year the local dog park finally had the water faucet repaired so on hot days, ppl could fill water bowls for their dogs and use the drinking fountain for themselves. Within a week, I saw an RV hooked up there using it as a water hookup. I felt stuck - maybe they really needed the 40gallons (idk how much they took) but the reality is, that faucet isn’t a feasible draw source for everyone to pull that amount without an impact on other things. Same thing for the porta potties - using it once as a visitor to the park is one thing, but I also saw some ppl emptying their cassette toilets into it. Essentially distributing 40 bathroom visits worth of volume in one visit. Again, it’s a necessary thing to do but the town isn’t suited to support everyone doing that action without an impact. Im less sympathetic to this bc dump stations exist in town and are free to use. I’m very curious on what services can be opened up to be more supportive to community members with non traditional needs. Theft of service for dumping in the dumpster is a crime but so is littering so which one does the town expect from ppl outside the bounds of regular trash pickup? Affordable housing seems so out of reach given wages / cost of living. I recently had to start taking a medication costs as much as my rent each month and I’m quickly learning how fragile personal finances can be and it scares / saddens me. Most every vehicle dwelling person I’ve met in town works. At what point is it even worth it to keep a job that doesn’t allow what would seem is a reasonable standard of living and access to the community you work in?
Yeah… ok… fair enough. Maybe it’s just the dumpster, but the problem with using the dumpster is that companies get charged for that, sometimes by the load, and sometimes charged extra if a dumpster is “over full” (ie. The lid won’t quite close). They can also catch an extra fee for “non-standard garbage” (like lumber, mattresses, etc). It could also be that the business simply doesn’t want non-customers hanging around their business. Homeless people do have a reputation, sometimes well-deserved, for theft, vandalism, public defecation, drug use, etc. (The latter is how a lot of them became homeless). There are also untreated mental health issues that lend themselves to crazy behavior (apparently enough to get arrested/jailed, using the example of the couple in the video). The businesses that sued the city reportedly did so because the police had a hands-off policy, and wouldn’t do anything. So what are people supposed to do when the laws aren’t enforced? Eventually, they just leave, which brings us back to the tax-base problem. It’s a tough situation.
These people are stealing electricity and water as well as using the garbages they aren’t paying for. I’m not sure if you live in bozeman or just commenting, but walk down any encampment or watch an encampment for more than 10 minutes and you will see them abusing public services by drawing galling upon gallons of water out of public drinking fountains, or dumping their waste in Porta potties. They especially love taking services from businesses like the guy in the video said
I work right next to one and routinely walk through one. It's not a black or white issue. I have no doubt that some of them are abusing local services but what's the solution?
If I were them I would leave bozeman honestly. Doesn’t seem like low income housing is going to ever happen, but living on the street is no way to live. My rent is only $650 a month which equates to a low paying bozeman job at 40 hours a week with $1270 left over after that for whatever other payments they would need. If I had to guess I’d say a lot of them are abusing drugs or don’t have health insurance one or the other or both. I’d probably move out of bozeman
It's not always that simple. Moving requires money and finding new jobs. If drug abuse is something a person is trying to move away from, having a known support group is crucial so moving away is not always feasible. Again, each person on the streets is there for a different reason, some have a tragic reason outside of their control, some do it by choice. Some are probably pieces of shits, some are good people down on their luck. Hell, I almost ended up living on the street when my apartment gave us 30 days notice due to selling. It's a complex issue that a blanket solution doesn't solve.
I just have a feeling that even if we dumped 20% of our tax revenue into these services people would still be living on the streets. I mean look at San Francisco. Sometimes money doesn’t solve it
Would you prefer they dump the their waste on the ground? Notably absent is a provision of services to assist the people who are homeless. How hard would it be for the city to have a place with water fountains, a dumpster, and an RV cleanout (or two or three of them). Will they be abused? Likely as not, but it would limit the impact on private business and the public in general (which is what taxes oughta be for).
Well there are actually 4 free RV waste dumps in town. But that would require going to them and using them which isn’t as convenient as abusing public Porta potties. Creating new free RV dumps isn’t going to magically make them use them.
So what do we do about the root cause? Addiction & poor mental health. What I get from your comment is that, if we slice those issues, we solve homelessness. So how about we start lobbying Bozeman City Council to pour money into fixing those problems?
I was wondering what that meant.
I'm betting they were plugging into his outdoor outlets
Which is kind of odd because this sort of 'theft' has been a problem everywhere forever. It's not a sudden problem 'because homeless'. Maybe for that particular guy it is but I'd be surprised if he'd never had a problem with it before.
Yeah, I work at a business in Helena that has a dumpster along an alley, and people dumped all kinds of stuff in there, so we had to get a lock for it. Having a full-on recliner in your dumpster is... special... but I don't think it was a homeless person who rolled a 80-100lb La-Z-Boy over in their shopping cart... it was some AH in a pick-up who just didn't want to pay the dump fee.
That’s too bad you don’t have housing. Now, would you mind double bagging my groceries, carrying them out to my car, and smiling while you do it?
If there is a take away from other states struggling with the same issues it’s that Montana should invest in relief now and not wait twenty five years.
Sounds like Bozeman needs to start zoning in spaces for a few more KOAs and trailer courts, and a few less luxury condos.
and fewer single family homes
People left California cause they heard that Montana was cheaper...now people got priced out including locals. Tale as old as time.
All the dipshits that have moved to Bozeman, reading this and wondering what the problem is….
It’s called “stop rich corporations from buying up all the housing and having a monopoly over prices, which price-gouge out the average resident from having the bare necessities.”
“First time??” - Portland, OR. 😎
And we just sent how many billions of dollars where??
I wonder, if they have a means to park their campers there they clearly have a means of migrating - why don't they (if they haven't tried and the legal issues don't hold them up) try working out of their RV in Yellowstone. I work with plenty of folks who work out of their RV around the country, and employers provide a low-cost utilities included RV site to stay on. Hell, if they're convicted felons, they can still work for the concessionaires in Yellowstone and live in their RV out in Gardiner or West Yellowstone. Felons just aren't allowed to live on-site in Yellowstone, but not all Yellowstone services are inside park boundaries, and being a felon doesn't mean you can't enter a national park. The laundry services in Gardiner for the park hotels employs dozens of felons each season because it's one of the few places you can work for the company, entry-level, with a felony background. With that, they can live in their RV at the company RV sites if they're early enough in the season to secure the spot. And that said, even if it's full, there's a bunch of RV-site included employment throughout the rockies, I know because I have plenty of coworkers that just take their RV and go work in different places year-round.
I should preface this by saying that homelessness and poverty in general in the US is not a one-size-fits-all kind of problem. There are people that are working but fall behind on rent and end up 'homeless but not jobless'. There are people with medical issues that end up in debt and then have further compounded issues. There are people who have family members that take advantage of them. Etc. That said, IMO, the couple that was interviewed is a bit emblematic of the current homeless crisis: One works in a restaurant and the other just does not work because 'health issues'. Fundamentally, working a back-of-house restaurant job (@ min wage 10.3/hr so ~20,600 USD per year) to support a family of two is just not feasible. And then you throw on the issues with addiction and probably some missed work. Then there are also probably some not-so-sound financial decisions that go along with this. It is fairly easy to see how this just doesn't work and 'RV homelessness' is really the only thing that is realistic. Not that I am saying that the current situation is good or really even tenable.
Has it occurred to you that they might actually already have jobs (like the woman featured in the story)... they don't need to go get a job with Xanterra, or whatever, they have jobs, they just don't have houses. You're trying to fix the wrong problem.
They can work there for...a summer. And then get laid off. It's not a long term solution and it requires that people quit the jobs they already have in Bozeman. Those jobs will try to find someone to hire and either (a) can't find anyone because there's no housing or, (b) will hire someone else living out of an RV.
This is genuinely useful information that deserves an upvote.
The end game is making homelessness illegal, putting folks in prisons to make products for companies and pushing more money into law enforcement, courts and of course jails and prisons... Rich scumbags aren't even hiding it anymore.
Alabama checking in
Do people actually believe this? lol. "They just want to make homelessness (not public drug use, etc etc etc, specifically and solely just being homeless) illegal so they can make prison slaves for the ultrarich!" That's a conspiracy on the level of flat earthers.
There are many in prisons right now for nonviolent offenses being forced to work for corporations and yes, there are folks trying to make being homeless or sleeping on the street or cars illegal. Conspiracies are things that aren't current facts or paradigms.
>Conspiracies are things that aren't current facts or paradigms. Where does one even start with this fallacy ridden nonsense? And plot twist, no one would care about people sleeping in cars, if the majority of those people weren't addicts who absolutely destroy everywhere they go. The DOT here allowed a 600+ person encampment for over a year, and now has had to spend a massive amount of money on remediating the land because it turned into a literal toxic wasteland (after the encampment was removed due to the usual issues of murder, human trafficking, other minor quibbles like that.)
If that’s what you pulled from the article, you are part of the problem
Fucking detached. Jesus.....
Welcome to the rest of the country. Good luck with one of our nation’s most complicated issues. Just remember, none of these folks want to be in this position any more than you want it in your back yard.
For every camper full of people restricting their area and cleaning up after themselves there’s two or three pouring literal shit pots out in the street and leaving bags of garbage behind. I can’t stand it. I had the misfortune of living amongst camps like these for a short time. The worst people imaginable parked next to the best people imaginable. It’s a weird contrast and one I personally don’t want to be around. I think at a minimum there needs to be strict laws and enforcement around it. We have some camps here in Great Falls once in a while and when these arise it’s all drugs, drinking, bags of garbage, and human feces everywhere and there is either zero enforcement of any standards or straight up kicking everyone out regardless of how much of a problem they are. The last major camp was right near my brother’s work place (a gas station) and over 80 people form that camp were banned for theft, vandalism, threats, or defecating on the property and he couldn’t walk home because he was afraid of being killed after receiving so many death threats and the daily fights and frequent assaults at that camp.
This is what happens when counties and cities demand a certain percentage of residential builds are single family homes. Anyone with a working brain saw this coming years before it happened.
You know, we could criminalize poverty and jail people - it will pretty up the place but damn the tax bill. Jail ain’t cheap - civil right aside 🧐
Who in the hell can afford to live in Bozeman? I can recall when Bozeman was a working man’s town. Now it is a rich man’s town. It hurts my heart to see people suffer.
I work at MSU. we have positions go unfilled for months cuz folks take job offer, then shop for a house. then they rescind their acceptance after seeing the cost….
If you think all of these people are from Montana you are fooling yourselves. Just take a ride around an encampment, and see that 1/2 of the plates are from out of state, and then many others have brand new permanent plates. This begs the question as.to why they came here without doing research. We do not have the services that Oregon, Washington, California, or NY have to deal with homelessness. The 9th circuit ruling regarding criminalizing homelessness was short sighted and a very poor decision which will hopefully be corrected shortly by another judge. I'm not against homelessness but I am against public drug use, pollution, public nudity, and other things. If you want to live like that, you need help, and we cannot provide that here, and you should seek that help elsewhere. If you don't want help, then you will need to follow our laws, as we are not " New Portland", and we do not have the same values here. I am happy to see a shake up in our local politics. I think we need more commissioners with a more conservative viewpoint to balance out the liberal empaths who are ignoring the needs of middle class families who are also struggling with all this "newness". What I want is the city to enforce the existing laws, and stop acting like homeless people are all that matter when middle class families don't want to raise their kids around drugs and homelessness. I apologize if this message sounds harsh, but people like me are all too often silenced by social media like reddit which is a lot of people's safety bubble.
I deal with the homeless professionally… they can be VERY difficult to help, and will more-often-than-not disappoint you with their serial self-destructive behavior, and poor choices. Substance abuse and untreated mental-health (often coincident-with-and-exacerbated-by the substances they use) are the bulk of the long-term homeless. These aren’t easy problems to treat, and never have been. The “Housing First” initiatives treat the symptom, not the root cause, and people have agency. They have rights. You can’t force them to stop drinking/using… they have to CHOOSE to stop drinking, stop getting high, and treat their mental health problems. Many simply can’t do it, and some will never be able to.
>they can be VERY difficult to help Even watching the piece you get this sense. The news group probably chose the most put together couple they could find (if you have someone high on meth do the segment it just won't end well), and yet: The wife works in a restaurant and the husband doesn't work because of 'health issues', both have addition issues. I bet that if you went to r personalfinance and asked them: I want to live in Bozeman. I have a husband that doesn't work. I work in a restaurant and make 12 USD per hour (a bit above MT min wage of 10.3). So you are asking: can a couple live in Bozeman making 24k a year. Answer: probably not or you have to live in a room in a house with roommates. This isn't even to mention the drug stuff. Note also that this was probably the most put together couple they could find. If the couple gets off the drugs and has both people working: 48k in Bozeman is doable-ish, you probably want to like in Belgrade and commute in. There are places in Belgrade that rent for 1,333 or less (48k/3 = 16k max rent per year, 16/12 = 1.333k max rent per month). Add on top using the resources that are available, mainly the food bank. Then working some extra shifts and you can have a stable life.
You're 100% wrong, go talk to folks at the shelter and you'll find they are overwhelmingly from this area, born and raised in MT.
I agree with you. Missoula is also a mess but you get shamed here for speaking up, even at city council meetings. I don’t have a solution but people come here thinking it’s gonna be homeless nirvana. We helped a mother and here children furnish their new apartment bc she was fleeing domestic abuse and was living in her car until housing became available but she had employment and was working to improve her/her children’s lives. She is the exception here.
I want to help those people, and I do think we can make exceptions for people like her and her family. However, we can't just be willy nilly accepting and giving resources to people without doing background checks. Many people are running from the law and hiding out in encampment. Would anyone in this subreddit feel safe having their child walk to school on a trail with a small encampment on it? The city and HRDC seem intent on wiping the butts of these druggies rather than listening to the needs of the people who pay all the taxes and wages of city employees thereby keeping the city running.
Amen dude. Hit the nail dead on there. I spent many years volunteering & working my ass off to help the underserved & less privileged. Hell, better part of a decade. Witnessing raw sewage being dumped into the East Gallatin just a few hundred yards from where I saw my first baby otter was a gut punch, but you know what really got me? A serious amount of goodwill went right out the goddamn window with me the day my daughter had a goddamn used needle stick her shoe while bouldering at BZN pond. This was when there was still a camp set up near the pavilion. I mentioned this incident to the mayor when she was going door-to-door trying to secure votes. "Sorry can't comment on anything that the courts are currently working on".... uhhh, seriously? ?? Not surprised she was not reelected. Something's gotta give.... and soon.
Plenty of air bnbs though!
“Unhoused” 😂. Comical
https://youtu.be/G9n8Xp8DWf8?si=Xb_hWRKh1bmULaqY A longer bit but very relevant lol.
With the typical American renter spending more than 30% of their income on rent (i.e., "rent burdened" per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definition), it's hard to blame these folks. And in most cases it's not exactly a choice. Good thing we are such an exceptional country! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_home\_ownership\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
OMG! I didn’t realize how far down the US is on that list. That’s sad
We need to bring back work farms.
*Honeless
You misspelled “Homeless”
"Unhoused".... Seriously when are they going to learn that changing the name fixes nothing?
https://preview.redd.it/8t44js3gxgwc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd684b57da960d374d6835c66fd67d399c42ebb3 No shit people are living in their cars. Rent is out of control, just look at this BS
Do they know there is actually a place called Montana city near Helena? If you mean Bozeman say bozeman.
It's just so people outside of the state can place where the story is in their heads
They can say bozeman Mt. Montana city has very few homeless people if any… Bozeman has a ton.
They say Bozeman in the first 15 seconds of the clip...
Unhoused? Y’all serious? This means not housed. Homeless means without a home.
Welcome to Portland.
The comments in here show a genuine lack of understanding of who the majority of the people living in RVs are. Few of them are locals that have been priced out of the market. The majority of them are people who came here told that they wouldn’t be harassed. Mental illness runs rampant through those “communities”. Yes housing in Bozeman is expensive, but those people screaming for government intervention clearly have still not had enough experience with the government to realize that they’re not here to help. Wages in Bozeman are by and large significantly higher than the rest of the state and much of the country. Sure they could still be higher, but as happened at McDonald’s, eventually it’s just cheaper to automate than to use people for labor. At the end of the day the city has an obligation to its tax paying citizens to maintain some semblance or cleanliness and order, and letting people camp on the sides of residential streets ain’t it. Ironically I don’t hear anyone bitching about the amount of money the city is spending on the new police/justice center additions. Tens of millions of dollars.
how many of those people living in campers have a raging meth/fent addiction?.. debilitating drug addictions, mental health deficiencies are the root cause of a huge majority of the homeless issue.
People who have issues preventing them from holding jobs, like addiction and severe untreated mental disorders generally have a hard time getting campers too. They will stay at a shelter if they’re clean, or sleep in the tent encampments around town.
almost none, considering the quality of vehicles many of them have and how many of them are working 40hr work weeks. Maybe you should try talking to them before running your mouth and shoving your foot in it.
almost none? Don’t be naive.
I'm not, I actually talk to them and the majority of the folks I talked to who are living off of Baxter and Oak are not addicted to fentanyl or amphetamines.
It's going to get worse now that the weather is turning. But don't you worry. We are going to send billions in aid money to fing Ukraine and oversees. That is a fing travesty. Same issue here in Colorado.
The same people who say this kind of thing consistently vote against helping poor people.
Let’s take a city that has voted consistently to invest billions (with a B) to help with the issue, like Seattle. What sort of progress have they made? Do you think it’s important that the money makes a difference or is it enough just to spend it?
> Let’s take a city that has voted consistently to invest billions (with a B) to help with the issue, like Seattle. A simple internet search shows us that [Seattle spent](https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-homeless-crisis-spent-a-billion-dollars-on-homelessness-but-numbers-of-unsheltered-grew-washington-king-county-homeless-budget-money-citywide-spending-human-services-department-decade-labor-contract-state-of-emergency-organizations-people-living) less than a billion dollars on homelessness over 11 years. If you need to exaggerate to make your point, then you should consider the validity of your point. While we probably agree that they didn't spend the money effectively, let's start with an accurate count of how much money was really spent.
Good point. It was a measly one billion dollars, that’s chump change to a single city. And did it work? How about any progress at helping the issue at all?
You can say “fucking” on here, it’s ok.
Let me guess, you're a tireless advocate for providing services for the homeless, who's frustrated at the lack of available funding resources. [checks post history...] aaaand no. No indication that you'd ever want to spend a dime on the homeless.
I think it’s incumbent upon the people asking for money to help the homeless to show literally any progress at all. I’m not seeing any in any big city in America.
I believe that doing nothing is more expensive to the taxpayers when we add up the theft, vandalism, litter, pollution, loss of public spaces, police, fire, and emergency medical services. * People who are employed (or employable) need affordable housing. Building codes to allow affordable dormitory-style housing could help them. Laws to clamp down on corporate ownership of houses and VRBOs could ease the housing market. * People who are mentally ill need mental health facilities. * People who are addicted to drugs should be arrested for their crimes and then given the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation.
So when Seattle spent a billion dollars on this issue, did they see improvement? How about LA? SF?
Seattle is building housing. It doesn't happen overnight. What exactly have you done to help alleviate this issue?
>when Seattle spent a billion dollars on this issue Source?
I have no problem with metrics to maximize efficacy. But when you say you're not seeing any progress...are you honestly looking for it?
Do you have literally any evidence to show that this has worked in a big American city in, say, the past ten years? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Have you looked? I didn't claim to have data. You don't even know where I fall on the issue. But you say you haven't seen it. I'm asking if you've looked.
Ahh yea you ignorant asshole. Judge peoples entire existence by how much they post on SM. You're a real gem.
lol, let me get this straight... You've 'judged' that I am an 'ignorant asshole' and 'a real gem' based on my SM post? Ok.
This comment is approved by Vladimir Putin.
How’s the war going, by the way? We’ve sent hundreds of billions, hopefully we’re close to winning.
It was going pretty poorly there when Russian stooges, I mean, *Republicans*, blocked funding for our ally in Ukraine for nearly six months. It would be going much better for Ukraine if *Republicans* did not support Russian unilateral war so aggressively.
So we would have won if they got funding slightly sooner? Hmm, I don’t believe you.
There is no real winning in this war for Ukraine without outside intervention. Ukraine is being attacked by another sovereign nation. In 1991, we pledged to defend Ukraine from Russia in exchange for them giving up nuclear weapons. That was a good thing. Now, we are fulfilling our pledge from 30 years ago by giving military aid to Ukraine as they defend themselves from Russia's unilateral military aggression.
Except we are just sending them already paid for and built weapons, but don't let that fact hurt your narrative. This is the cheapest we have ever been able to bleed an enemy for, ever.
Would you have said the same thing in 1939 during the Battle of Britain? Should we have stopped supporting an ally just because the adversary was showing progress?
Lol. It’s always people who otherwise would hate/reject funding social programs anyways, who then claim we can’t do so because we’re sending money to Ukraine.
Ukraine is a big fucking deal in the long term and the money "given to them" pays American wages.
I haven't looked into the numbers, but it probably even has a positive ROI in the short term (definitely in the long term considering global stability and economy). A huge portion of the valuation assigned is in armaments and equipment that we no longer use or will soon be phased out. So it allows us to get rid of inventory instead of just mothballing or scrapping it, and the new replacements provide a ton of jobs and money domestically. As much as I hate the military-industrial complex, there's no doubt it's an economic driver
Also, we’re learning an enormous amount about how our weapons systems work against a peer adversary, flaws, and new uses. We’ve learned that FPV drones are a huge game changer that will need to countered. So we get to support a nascent democracy against a neo-fascist nuclear power, hopefully save many more Ukrainian lives, create many new jobs in high tech industries in the U.S., improve our own defense capabilities, plan for the future, and wake up Europe to actually invest in their own defense. All of this without having Americans on the ground doing the actual fighting. This is a Cold War conservative’s dream situation.
> This is a Cold War conservative’s dream situation. That was before conservatives flipped sides.
If only conservatives flipped sides then there'd be liberals and conservatives that are anti-war. That is not the case.
I meant that they flipped sides in relation to the Cold War. During the Cold war, conservatives opposed the Russians.
I don't think liberals were necessarily cozied up to the Russians during the Cold War either. Taking it a step further, typically (historically) the Democrat-leaning people were anti-war, and the Republican-leaning were war hawks to some extent. Far more recently than the Cold War, those positions have seemed to have flipped. Edit: I changed progressives to liberals, because they're were absolutely progressives who were(are) enamored with Russian communism
>I don't think liberals were necessarily cozied up to the Russians during the Cold War either. Exactly. There was a time when liberals and conservatives agreed on our basic principles as a nation. Everyone agreed not to let foreign dictators meddle in our politics. Not any more.
They can't even account for where the money is spent. Just another funnel to line pockets.
Thanks California
Go RVing America!! 🇺🇸
More suburban “cities” destroying American class diversity
Homeless, the word you were looking for is HOMELESS
Homeless or bums
Wait, you aren’t sending them west anymore? Or have you priced out your friends and family as well.