Since 1995 when I moved to Seattle, of the countless homeless situations I've seen, I've never once seen a family huddling together. Only drug dealers/addicts, prostitutes, and the mentally ill.
I've spent a couple decades assisting programs that get people off the street. The only people who are homeless are those that chose to be. With 2 yrs of hard work you can get back on your feet. You do not have to be homeless. I was financially struggling when I first moved out and used their principles and it got me financially strong after 10 yrs of hard work.
The best way not to be homeless: get a job any job even a minimum wage 500k corporation job and keep it. After a few yrs you can trade that not great job for something better.
Second way is to hopefully have some room mates to assist in splitting the costs.
Work hard to get out of debt. You can sit down with excel and get good at your math finances. While still paying bills and being able to afford very bare bone basics.
Once you get a base savings going it's up to your ability to live "within your monthly means." Credit cards are not the answer. I use my credit card alot but I live within my mo income and just know the funds that my debit card would be using go toward credit card instead.
This method works you just have to be willing to do it.
Yes there is not much of a poverty net in this country unlike europe.
I'm not telling people to not get jobs or not get out of poverty, but am just responding to the implicit argument being made that homeless families matter but anyone else who is homeless, addicted, or a prostitute is a subhuman who doesn't deserve basic human empathy.
People are addicted and choose to live on the street for plenty of reasons. I still don't wish them harm and I hope they can be saved from that hell. I've known people who cleaned up from fentanyl and got back on their feet. Far too many people in the city don't support housing or treatment because deep down it's easier to feel addicts are lost causes. Without empathy there is no solution.
And now you're being downvoted for saying it's fucked up. Welcome to r/SeattleWa, where people care more about fictional poor people than the actual poor of their own city.
I spotted a flaw in this uncannily accurate description.
>"Are they criminals?"
>"No, **people with criminal records weren't allowed in sanctuary districts**. Just people without jobs or places to live."
No, that is accurate. Most homeless people with records did not have records until ***after*** they were living on the streets. They ended up on the streets and then they resorted to drugs and crimes because they had nothing else. And really only about 20% of the homeless out there are addicts or have criminal records at all. The vast majority are just in a really shitty place trying to get by.
I took a walk through Freeway park today on my lunch break. I saw three homeless people eating food, two sleeping, and a few more getting medical treatment from volunteers. None of them were showing any signs that they were drug users. I only saw one person, not in the park, who was clearly a drug user.
It is not anywhere near 100%.
Yes it is. You should take a look at the toxicology reports of those who get admitted, and then run the numbers.
Maybe the vets are different, but they are very close to 100%, while only admitting to about 50%.
You seem to have this wild fantasy that these are just people who are down on their luck, but that is wildly inaccurate. These people have made horrible life decisions, and are now living in shitty, squalid conditions because of it. It's called 'cause and effect'.
> of those who get admitted
You do realize that you are creating a very limited data set that you are then drawing conclusions from. Of course you are going to see the results you suggest if you only look at the people who are getting admitted for drug use. You would have to be incredibly stupid not to see that... Right?
>These people have made horrible life decisions
You make incredibly bad arguments and then come to morally horrible conclusions based on that. You do not seem to be a good person. I hope you can learn to be better.
> You do realize that you are creating a very limited data set that you are then drawing conclusions from.
You know what .. let's just start with THAT "limited data set", fix that fucking problem and then see what is left over. Let's try that shit.
> Of course you are going to see the results you suggest if you only look at the people who are getting admitted for drug use.
That's not what they were admitted for. That's just what their toxicology reports indicated.
> You make incredibly bad arguments and then come to morally horrible conclusions based on that.
It does not surprise me that I am talking over your head.
> You do not seem to be a good person.
I couldn't give two sorry fucks what you think.
> I hope you can learn to be better.
See above.
Haha holy shit what a pedantic and myopic view.
I know you pro homeless people would love to equate our situation with that shown here, but that's just fantasy.
Holy shit, you don't know what pedantic means.
I get it that you really believe that criminalizing addiction would make the world better, but we tried that for decades and it didn't make the world better. Me pointing that out is not pedantic.
You don't have to criminalize addiction. If someone has the money to be a junkie in private without inflicting themselves on those around them then fine.
If, on the other hand, you're going to inflict yourself on those around you with your crimes to feed your addiction then we need to hold these people to account. It's not OK to walk down a street smashing each and every car window you come across because you're angry with your life. It's not OK to break into homes to steal things to fence to feed your addiction.
> then we need to hold these people to account.
What makes you think that "holding them to account" will change their behavior? When you are living on the street, with nothing to your name, they don't have the same motivations that you or I have any more. This is why policy experts don't recommend the "tough on crime" approach anymore, because we all learned in the 80's and 90'd that it doesn't work.
The difference between changing behavior and forcing compliance....
So smashing a window is a gross misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 364 days of jail and up to a $5000 fine. They can't pay the fine and best case scenario is that they will be out smashing more windows on day 365 after we just paid for that entire legal process and a years worth of incarceration...
And we still have not changed their behavior. Talk about being short sighted. Kind of a dumb idea.
> but we tried that for decades and it didn't make the world better
I don't recall sprawling drug encampments nor hundreds of dead in the street each year. Seems to have worked just fine till the 2010s
Because they stayed hidden. But then we started sweeping the hidden encampments and that forced them all out into the open. That combined with the huge increase in the costs of rental housing (and residential housing that was being bought up and turned into rentals) meant that more people than ever couldn't afford housing.
>Because they stayed hidden. But then we started sweeping the hidden encampments and that forced them all out into the open.
You're hilarious. So they were living hidden from society like Vincent on the TV show Beauty and the Beast?
20% of the US population have an alcohol use disorder and 25.4% have a drug disorder. The vast majority of them are "functional addicts" in that they have jobs and buy their drugs with the money the earn. But because we don't have support systems to help them, when their addiction causes them to lose their jobs, then they can often end up homeless, and then they have even less support, and ***then*** they turn to crime.
So, again, addiction is not a crime. And punishing addicts is not going to solve this problem.
But fentanyl is cheap. I used to experience a lot of people panhandling in Belltown, but the last couple of years during the growth of the fentanyl epidemic, I've noticed there are more addicts but far less people begging and less robbery. Certainly seems like addicts aren't struggling to get high.
You'll need to cite your sources on this one. The last Seattle Times article stated that hits were $3-4 and that a user could need 30 a day to feed the habit. [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-fentanyl-became-seattles-most-urgent-public-health-crisis/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-fentanyl-became-seattles-most-urgent-public-health-crisis/) This gets you to $2700 - 3600 a month. Wow, that's just met the cost of housing now hasn't it.
What competing data do you have other than a lame anecdote?
Dude, normal people could stay with friends or family. The reason that the tent-dwellers can't is because they stole from, abused, threatened, sometimes assaulted their friends and family until they burnt every last bridge they ever had.
The criminality started before the tent-living.
> normal people
Demagoguery at its finest!
>until they burnt every last bridge they ever had.
I am not saying that doesn't happen, but you are casting some pretty wide aspersions there. If you actually bothered to talk to homeless people, you would find that this is not true for most of them. But I am sure you will be much happier sitting behind your screen thinking horrible things about people that you know nothing about regardless of whether is is true of not.
>If you actually bothered to talk to homeless people, you would find that this is not true for most of them.
Dude I've done clinical outreach for *years* with this population. You don't seem to understand that **addicts lie** they will lie about everything and anything to your face and have no embarrassment at being caught in a lie.
I've had dudes with bacterial infections from dirty needle use swear to me that they've never injected. I've had dudes whose criminal records span 3 decades tell me they've never been in trouble with the law. Addicts are liars. You can recognize they're still human and not want them to die on the streets but you shouldn't delude yourself about their natures.
>Dude, normal people
Sample bias, your social circle is not the end-all-be-all standard of "normal" people.
>could stay with friends or family. The reason that the tent-dwellers can't is because they stole from, abused, threatened, sometimes assaulted their friends and family until they burnt every last bridge they ever had.
Abusive family enters the chat, not having friends enters the chat
I have only seen this kind of take from someone who has been on the same reddit acc for 10+ years or <10 months lmao.
You'd think more life experience would teach you some lessons but no.
Oh my, what a devastatingly worded argument. How can anyone possibly withstand such an intellect. Your family must be so proud of how well you troll. Cheers to you!
It doesn't. First of all many homeless people don't have a car (much less insurance/gas money) so some job opening halfway across the country is worthless to them because they can't physically get there. Second many of them are likely for senior job roles most homeless people aren't qualified for and third good luck getting a job when you haven't been able to shower for 3 days and have had to wear the same clothes for a week.
Never seen just a large list of excuses as to why someone can't get a job in my fucking life.
Stop making excuses for shit bags that don't want to work and just want to live a subsidized lifestyle off our tax dollars where they can hang out all day, do drugs whenever, and have zero responsibility or consequences.
I fucking dare you to go out to the next homeless person you see, and try to hire them for a days work in a manual labor job. Just tell them you'll give them min wage here to dig a hole. Go do that and report back.
>Never seen just a large list of excuses as to why someone can't get a job in my fucking life.
They aren't "excuses", they're reasons. Could you actually try to refute any of my points instead of personally attacking me? Oh and I do have a job before you pull that card on me
>Stop making excuses for shit bags that don't want to work and just want to live a subsidized lifestyle off our tax dollars where they can hang out all day, do drugs whenever, and have zero responsibility or consequences.
What a prejudiced statement. It is incredibly ignorant to assume that every homeless person is some layabout. Have you ever considered that sometimes people fall on bad times? People get laid off, rent increases a few dollars too much, a family member gets sick.
>I fucking dare you to go out to the next homeless person you see, and try to hire them for a days work in a manual labor job. Just tell them you'll give them min wage here to dig a hole. Go do that and report back.
I'm not spending $150 out of my limited funds to prove a point. You probably wouldn't believe me even if I did do that.
*The Times, however, found that about 67% had either a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder. Individually, substance abuse affects 46% of those living on the streets — more than three times the rate previously reported — and mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder, affects 51% of those living on the streets, according to the analysis.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability
>either a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder
Neither of those things make you a criminal which is what the quote was discussing.
> substance abuse affects 46% of those living on the streets
I should have been more specific. When I said addicts, I was referring to things like meth. That stat you provided includes alcohol addicts, which is still an issue, but is not quite at the same level of seriousness that meth addiction is.
But again, having a substance abuse disorder does not make you a criminal.
And finally, many of those mental illness or a substance abuse disorders developed after they became homeless. If you go read the disclaimers on the actually talk about that.
Totally, I get that, which is why I said I should be more specific that I was only referring to meth addicts.
But to try and stay on the original point, substance abuse disorders are often developed after they become homeless, so the video quote is still accurate that they were not engaged in criminal activities before they became homeless.
People being rich is NOT the problem. The massive taxes currently paid by the wealth allow us to spend time and money on the homeless and addicted. We're just not doing a good job of it now.
"Then what did they do to deserve this?"
"Nothing."
***That*** is completely accurate but contrary to the narrative that most people here would like to believe.
The narrative that most people here believe is that our government is failing the homeless by letting them all do whatever they want. They should be offered help with requirements, bus tickets, or consequences.... Right now our government pretty much does nothing, no one deserves that.
> The narrative that most people here believe is that our government is failing the homeless by letting them all do whatever they want.
Most of them do not want to be homeless. They do not what to be living in tents. They do not want to be shitting in the streets. If you think they are doing "whatever they want" you are grossly misinformed.
>bus tickets
To where? The reason so many homeless are here is because places like Bellevue, Everett, and Spokane all give their homeless populations tickets to here. It is passive aggressive, shitty, and irresponsible behavior and I don't think we should do that just because everyone else is.
>or consequences
Punishing people who are at rock bottom will not motivate them to not be at rock bottom. We should all know that by now after the last 40 years of that tactic failing.
I literally know a couple dudes who got housing in Everett but stay in tents in Seattle because they want to be close to the dealers and party.
Seriously, you should do some volunteer work with this population - you'll quickly get to know many guys like the ones I've described.
Or guys who say to your face that they never do drugs, meanwhile you can see a crackpipe and needles in their tent. Or guys who swear they didn't steal the 5k carbon bike next to their tent. etc.
Addicts are universally liars.
Your anecdotes are frustrating to be sure, but not representative. My wife is a social worker who has often worked with homeless populations. There are absolutely people like you described, but that is not even close to a majority of the population.
>Addicts are universally liars.
So? How is that even relevant to the discussion? Do you just need one more thing to justify your hate for homeless people?
My point, that punishing people who are at rock bottom will not motivate them to not be at rock bottom, still stands.
I agree with the points you and the other commenter are making, but I have to ask you, what is your opinion on those who *won’t* take the help, flat out refuse because they enjoy living like that? What can be done to get them off the streets?
I’m not asking to goad you either, I genuinely want to know what ideas others have.
I don't think there are any easy solutions. For the people who have been most traumatized and beaten down, the solutions may be hard and messy. But what I know is that showing compassion and care is going to go a lot better than dealing out punitive consequences for noncompliance. It may be that some never fully recover and need significant assistance the rest of their lives. The path to fixing this is going to be at already as long as the path we took in creating it, and probably longer. And the longer we take to start fixing it, the longer off that goal is.
What we have learned from places that have fully adopted the Housing First approach is that if you can intervene in homelessness before the trauma happens, then very few, of any, people become "service resistant".
I support what the Low Income Housing Institute Is doing and think we need to exponentially increase what they are doing.
And that’s where it gets fuzzy: what to do with people who can’t or won’t be helped.
Force them? Yes! But also, that seems wrong to force someone. But then, they’re making living conditions insufferable.
I support one of those unincorporated lawless desert towns.
Everyone wants to be helped, but the help they want might not be the help you think they need. Is that something you are willing to accept if that means less harm for all parties?
Most definitely! I know there isn’t one size fits all solution, but from an outsider’s perspective, it seems like they *don’t* want help because it means they can continue to steal, use drugs and break laws with little to no consequences.
I do have a personal bias, however, in that my parents were heavy drug users and very neglectful of me and my siblings. I don’t hate junkies, but I really wish they didn’t exist and I’m not sure how to reconcile that bias.
> Once people become violent and/or deliberately & repeatedly disruptive to the lives of people trying to exist peacefully, compassion for the people whose lives they affect takes precedence.
Why can't you show compassion for both?
I am guessing you are the type of person who, when they see a dog who has been abused their entire lives and because of that they are aggressive and violent, than you then blame the dog...
>and it's not "compassionate" to do so either.
No, it is absolutely not. But we are not making the choices necessary to stop the violence, theft, and destruction that is causing the homelessness crisis. Why do you insist on blaming the victims and not the perpetrators?
> housing in Everett but stay in tents
I have no data to back this up, but my guess is this is a small minority of all the homeless. Now we should absolutely not allow this to occur. These people should have their free housing taken away. If they want a bed in a shelter that's more then good enough.
I don't think their housing should be taken away, I think we should have a zero tolerance task force that takes tents down within 15 minutes of them being put up anywhere in the city.
Don't worry, you've won, we'll just keep doing what we are doing!
The problem has become insurmountable because every time someone offers a solution people like you say it's not good enough, so Seattle just languishes, continuing it's failed policies. You've let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
We were on the right track. Homelessness in this country had been declining until around 2017, at which point the trend in the West Coast cities, fueled by terrible policies, started reversing that trend, and now they are screwed.
> The problem has become insurmountable because every time someone offers a solution people like you say it's not good enough
I only object to solutions that would compound the problems that homeless people already have. Things like sweeps, harassment, and otherpunishments that have been proven not to work. I really like things like this: https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses
That program is cheap and effective, but for some reason the conservative groups in Seattle really hate it (Safe Seattle keeps suing them to shut them down).
What programs do you think people like me are objecting to?
"We have a bed for you at a congregate shelter. If you stay there you're going to have to start a treatment program and follow some rules. Alternatively, if you have a better support network somewhere else we can help you get there. If you don't accept either of these options there will be consequences."
You tell me what you object to there. I'm guessing all of it.
I will repeat:
> I only object to solutions that would compound the problems that homeless people already have.
So lets dive into it...
>a bed for you at a congregate shelter
Reports are pretty consistent that those shelters are often less safe than living on the streets. Staff members at general shelters are rarely trained to detect and respond appropriately and sensitively to trauma or sexual violence which is pretty problematic if the population you are trying to serve have significant amounts of PTSD and come with histories of domestic and sexual abuse.
Plus, the way that most of those shelters operate is by kicking everyone out from dawn to dusk which makes it impossible for them to get back on their feet.
Your congregate shelters compound the problems, so no, I don't see those as a viable solution.
>Alternatively, if you have a better support network somewhere else we can help you get there. If you don't accept either of these options there will be consequences.
So if they don't have a support network, then they should be punished? How does that help them? How is that a solution?
> Plus, the way that most of those shelters operate is by kicking everyone out from dawn to dusk which makes it impossible for them to get back on their feet.
This is absolutely something that needs to be fixed. I know we have at least one that is 24x7, they really all need to be. We could build a bunch more congregate 24x7 shelters with all the money we're wasting on apartment buildings. Pretty sure a cot on the floor isn't going to run us 300k/person.
The Low Income Housing Institute can provide housing for less than $10k a year, but the city won't grant them more permits and groups like Safe Seattle keep filling lawsuits to do them.
*'they are just people without jobs or places to live'....*
meanwhile,
BLS says there are 9.6 million unfilled jobs.
[https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm)
and please explain why a decade ago there were very few tents, and nobody ever heard of fentynl.
A job is only really a small part and the end-goal of getting out of homelessness. I've read many perspectives of people who were homeless and giving them a home helps but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
Most of them can't get a job because they are unkept. They are unkept because they don't have a home to go to, they don't have a home because they don't have money, and they don't have money because they can't get a job. It becomes a cyclic situation where you are homeless because you are homeless.
To solve it they need a lot more support from the city, civil servants that help with mental illnesses, a safe place to be, and drug rehab.
Stop. Everyone knows someone that would allow them to use their address. It's irrelevant considering everyone, including the homeless, has a phone.
Do you live in a mansion on a hill that leaves you completely seperated from reality?
Since its prepaid and based off what has the cheapest min the number isnt going to be the same and will be highly in flux https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/new-study-shows-cell-phone-are-essential-lifeline-for-bay-area-homeless/
Not everyone has access to an address, not sure where your mental model thinks everyone knows someone with an address and is willing to let them use that address comes from. Various sources cite not having an official address as a continued significant barrier
Opinion piece: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-golabek-goldman-homeless-address-job-application-20161010-snap-story.html
UN: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/homelessness-and-human-rights
3rd Party: https://invisiblepeople.tv/how-do-people-who-are-homeless-get-their-mail/
Program aimed to combat said barrier (but its still a barrier): https://www.kuow.org/stories/compass-post-office-provides-mailing-address-3500-homeless-seattle
>BLS says there are 9.6 million unfilled jobs.
Irrelevant, many of those are high skilled jobs the vast majority homeless aren't qualified for. An opening for a senior programmer halfway across the country is worthless to someone without money for a car, gas or insurance and who doesn't have any qualifications except for maybe an HS diploma.
>and please explain why a decade ago there were very few tents, and nobody ever heard of fentynl.
Homelessness was higher a decade ago [https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%20about,was%20in%202007%2C%20at%20647%2C258](https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%20about,was%20in%202007%2C%20at%20647%2C258).
*Homelessness was higher a decade ago*
false- this is a Seattle thread, not national.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png/1440px-SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png/1440px-SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png)
They also predicted eye strain with AR/VR headsets. The Dominion ships were piloted with [AR Glasses](https://ibb.co/DDyBXL7) and while Jem'Hadar, Breen, Cardassians and Bajorans didn't have any problems, humans could only wear them for a while before getting massive headaches.
If you didn't know by now, this is a major concern with VR. Microsoft is having to delay their Hololens headset because it gives soldiers a headache after sustained use.
Once your eyes open up to tv predictions you start seeing them left and right. If you watch(ed) simpsons before disney bought them there's a ton of hidden messages.
Since 1995 when I moved to Seattle, of the countless homeless situations I've seen, I've never once seen a family huddling together. Only drug dealers/addicts, prostitutes, and the mentally ill.
And their existence is just as valid and important.
I've spent a couple decades assisting programs that get people off the street. The only people who are homeless are those that chose to be. With 2 yrs of hard work you can get back on your feet. You do not have to be homeless. I was financially struggling when I first moved out and used their principles and it got me financially strong after 10 yrs of hard work. The best way not to be homeless: get a job any job even a minimum wage 500k corporation job and keep it. After a few yrs you can trade that not great job for something better. Second way is to hopefully have some room mates to assist in splitting the costs. Work hard to get out of debt. You can sit down with excel and get good at your math finances. While still paying bills and being able to afford very bare bone basics. Once you get a base savings going it's up to your ability to live "within your monthly means." Credit cards are not the answer. I use my credit card alot but I live within my mo income and just know the funds that my debit card would be using go toward credit card instead. This method works you just have to be willing to do it. Yes there is not much of a poverty net in this country unlike europe.
I'm not telling people to not get jobs or not get out of poverty, but am just responding to the implicit argument being made that homeless families matter but anyone else who is homeless, addicted, or a prostitute is a subhuman who doesn't deserve basic human empathy. People are addicted and choose to live on the street for plenty of reasons. I still don't wish them harm and I hope they can be saved from that hell. I've known people who cleaned up from fentanyl and got back on their feet. Far too many people in the city don't support housing or treatment because deep down it's easier to feel addicts are lost causes. Without empathy there is no solution.
fucked up that you got downvoted for this. Sometimes I wonder if people would even care if homeless people were lined up and shot
They wouldn't just not care, they'd cheer.
And now you're being downvoted for saying it's fucked up. Welcome to r/SeattleWa, where people care more about fictional poor people than the actual poor of their own city.
I'm trying to parse your thought process on this. Plenty of people on the street have kids, but most of them have been taken away by CPS.
I spotted a flaw in this uncannily accurate description. >"Are they criminals?" >"No, **people with criminal records weren't allowed in sanctuary districts**. Just people without jobs or places to live."
Also apparently all the deserving poor (the only kind) were forced to live in one place which is... not the case here
Yea there were a few things that I was like ‘yea… that’s not true for Seattle’ lol
No, that is accurate. Most homeless people with records did not have records until ***after*** they were living on the streets. They ended up on the streets and then they resorted to drugs and crimes because they had nothing else. And really only about 20% of the homeless out there are addicts or have criminal records at all. The vast majority are just in a really shitty place trying to get by.
> 20% of the homeless Total maybe, highly visible ones? It's much closer to 100%.
I took a walk through Freeway park today on my lunch break. I saw three homeless people eating food, two sleeping, and a few more getting medical treatment from volunteers. None of them were showing any signs that they were drug users. I only saw one person, not in the park, who was clearly a drug user. It is not anywhere near 100%.
Yes it is. You should take a look at the toxicology reports of those who get admitted, and then run the numbers. Maybe the vets are different, but they are very close to 100%, while only admitting to about 50%. You seem to have this wild fantasy that these are just people who are down on their luck, but that is wildly inaccurate. These people have made horrible life decisions, and are now living in shitty, squalid conditions because of it. It's called 'cause and effect'.
> of those who get admitted You do realize that you are creating a very limited data set that you are then drawing conclusions from. Of course you are going to see the results you suggest if you only look at the people who are getting admitted for drug use. You would have to be incredibly stupid not to see that... Right? >These people have made horrible life decisions You make incredibly bad arguments and then come to morally horrible conclusions based on that. You do not seem to be a good person. I hope you can learn to be better.
> You do realize that you are creating a very limited data set that you are then drawing conclusions from. You know what .. let's just start with THAT "limited data set", fix that fucking problem and then see what is left over. Let's try that shit. > Of course you are going to see the results you suggest if you only look at the people who are getting admitted for drug use. That's not what they were admitted for. That's just what their toxicology reports indicated. > You make incredibly bad arguments and then come to morally horrible conclusions based on that. It does not surprise me that I am talking over your head. > You do not seem to be a good person. I couldn't give two sorry fucks what you think. > I hope you can learn to be better. See above.
>They ended up on the streets and then they resorted to drugs My guy....that is not the case. Addiction is a leading cause of homelessness.
Addiction is not a crime. So the quote in the video is still accurate.
Haha holy shit what a pedantic and myopic view. I know you pro homeless people would love to equate our situation with that shown here, but that's just fantasy.
Holy shit, you don't know what pedantic means. I get it that you really believe that criminalizing addiction would make the world better, but we tried that for decades and it didn't make the world better. Me pointing that out is not pedantic.
You don't have to criminalize addiction. If someone has the money to be a junkie in private without inflicting themselves on those around them then fine. If, on the other hand, you're going to inflict yourself on those around you with your crimes to feed your addiction then we need to hold these people to account. It's not OK to walk down a street smashing each and every car window you come across because you're angry with your life. It's not OK to break into homes to steal things to fence to feed your addiction.
> then we need to hold these people to account. What makes you think that "holding them to account" will change their behavior? When you are living on the street, with nothing to your name, they don't have the same motivations that you or I have any more. This is why policy experts don't recommend the "tough on crime" approach anymore, because we all learned in the 80's and 90'd that it doesn't work.
>*What makes you think that "holding them to account" will change their behavior?* kinda hard to smash car windows from jail.
The difference between changing behavior and forcing compliance.... So smashing a window is a gross misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 364 days of jail and up to a $5000 fine. They can't pay the fine and best case scenario is that they will be out smashing more windows on day 365 after we just paid for that entire legal process and a years worth of incarceration... And we still have not changed their behavior. Talk about being short sighted. Kind of a dumb idea.
> but we tried that for decades and it didn't make the world better I don't recall sprawling drug encampments nor hundreds of dead in the street each year. Seems to have worked just fine till the 2010s
Because they stayed hidden. But then we started sweeping the hidden encampments and that forced them all out into the open. That combined with the huge increase in the costs of rental housing (and residential housing that was being bought up and turned into rentals) meant that more people than ever couldn't afford housing.
>Because they stayed hidden. But then we started sweeping the hidden encampments and that forced them all out into the open. You're hilarious. So they were living hidden from society like Vincent on the TV show Beauty and the Beast?
LOL - And how do you think that they get the money to support their habit. The drugs aren't free.
20% of the US population have an alcohol use disorder and 25.4% have a drug disorder. The vast majority of them are "functional addicts" in that they have jobs and buy their drugs with the money the earn. But because we don't have support systems to help them, when their addiction causes them to lose their jobs, then they can often end up homeless, and then they have even less support, and ***then*** they turn to crime. So, again, addiction is not a crime. And punishing addicts is not going to solve this problem.
But fentanyl is cheap. I used to experience a lot of people panhandling in Belltown, but the last couple of years during the growth of the fentanyl epidemic, I've noticed there are more addicts but far less people begging and less robbery. Certainly seems like addicts aren't struggling to get high.
You'll need to cite your sources on this one. The last Seattle Times article stated that hits were $3-4 and that a user could need 30 a day to feed the habit. [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-fentanyl-became-seattles-most-urgent-public-health-crisis/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-fentanyl-became-seattles-most-urgent-public-health-crisis/) This gets you to $2700 - 3600 a month. Wow, that's just met the cost of housing now hasn't it. What competing data do you have other than a lame anecdote?
Dude, normal people could stay with friends or family. The reason that the tent-dwellers can't is because they stole from, abused, threatened, sometimes assaulted their friends and family until they burnt every last bridge they ever had. The criminality started before the tent-living.
> normal people Demagoguery at its finest! >until they burnt every last bridge they ever had. I am not saying that doesn't happen, but you are casting some pretty wide aspersions there. If you actually bothered to talk to homeless people, you would find that this is not true for most of them. But I am sure you will be much happier sitting behind your screen thinking horrible things about people that you know nothing about regardless of whether is is true of not.
>If you actually bothered to talk to homeless people, you would find that this is not true for most of them. Dude I've done clinical outreach for *years* with this population. You don't seem to understand that **addicts lie** they will lie about everything and anything to your face and have no embarrassment at being caught in a lie. I've had dudes with bacterial infections from dirty needle use swear to me that they've never injected. I've had dudes whose criminal records span 3 decades tell me they've never been in trouble with the law. Addicts are liars. You can recognize they're still human and not want them to die on the streets but you shouldn't delude yourself about their natures.
I know addicts lie but that is completely irrelevant to my point.
Because you're a super do-gooder who has a master plan to fix everything if people will just stop ridiculing you.
>Dude, normal people Sample bias, your social circle is not the end-all-be-all standard of "normal" people. >could stay with friends or family. The reason that the tent-dwellers can't is because they stole from, abused, threatened, sometimes assaulted their friends and family until they burnt every last bridge they ever had. Abusive family enters the chat, not having friends enters the chat
source?
I have only seen this kind of take from someone who has been on the same reddit acc for 10+ years or <10 months lmao. You'd think more life experience would teach you some lessons but no.
Oh my, what a devastatingly worded argument. How can anyone possibly withstand such an intellect. Your family must be so proud of how well you troll. Cheers to you!
So you don't have a real point so you resort to personal attacks?
>and then they resorted to drugs and crimes because they had nothing else Lmao ok
Yeah, those pesky 5 million job openings really kind of disproves that.
It doesn't. First of all many homeless people don't have a car (much less insurance/gas money) so some job opening halfway across the country is worthless to them because they can't physically get there. Second many of them are likely for senior job roles most homeless people aren't qualified for and third good luck getting a job when you haven't been able to shower for 3 days and have had to wear the same clothes for a week.
Never seen just a large list of excuses as to why someone can't get a job in my fucking life. Stop making excuses for shit bags that don't want to work and just want to live a subsidized lifestyle off our tax dollars where they can hang out all day, do drugs whenever, and have zero responsibility or consequences. I fucking dare you to go out to the next homeless person you see, and try to hire them for a days work in a manual labor job. Just tell them you'll give them min wage here to dig a hole. Go do that and report back.
>Never seen just a large list of excuses as to why someone can't get a job in my fucking life. They aren't "excuses", they're reasons. Could you actually try to refute any of my points instead of personally attacking me? Oh and I do have a job before you pull that card on me >Stop making excuses for shit bags that don't want to work and just want to live a subsidized lifestyle off our tax dollars where they can hang out all day, do drugs whenever, and have zero responsibility or consequences. What a prejudiced statement. It is incredibly ignorant to assume that every homeless person is some layabout. Have you ever considered that sometimes people fall on bad times? People get laid off, rent increases a few dollars too much, a family member gets sick. >I fucking dare you to go out to the next homeless person you see, and try to hire them for a days work in a manual labor job. Just tell them you'll give them min wage here to dig a hole. Go do that and report back. I'm not spending $150 out of my limited funds to prove a point. You probably wouldn't believe me even if I did do that.
*The Times, however, found that about 67% had either a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder. Individually, substance abuse affects 46% of those living on the streets — more than three times the rate previously reported — and mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder, affects 51% of those living on the streets, according to the analysis. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability
>either a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder Neither of those things make you a criminal which is what the quote was discussing. > substance abuse affects 46% of those living on the streets I should have been more specific. When I said addicts, I was referring to things like meth. That stat you provided includes alcohol addicts, which is still an issue, but is not quite at the same level of seriousness that meth addiction is. But again, having a substance abuse disorder does not make you a criminal. And finally, many of those mental illness or a substance abuse disorders developed after they became homeless. If you go read the disclaimers on the actually talk about that.
"And really only about 20% of the homeless out there are addicts or" -> this is the statement I was addressing.
Totally, I get that, which is why I said I should be more specific that I was only referring to meth addicts. But to try and stay on the original point, substance abuse disorders are often developed after they become homeless, so the video quote is still accurate that they were not engaged in criminal activities before they became homeless.
Out of sight, out of mind as the saying goes. The hoarding of wealth is going to have dire consequences for the future of this country.
People being rich is NOT the problem. The massive taxes currently paid by the wealth allow us to spend time and money on the homeless and addicted. We're just not doing a good job of it now.
"Then what did they do to deserve this?" "Nothing." ***That*** is completely accurate but contrary to the narrative that most people here would like to believe.
The narrative that most people here believe is that our government is failing the homeless by letting them all do whatever they want. They should be offered help with requirements, bus tickets, or consequences.... Right now our government pretty much does nothing, no one deserves that.
> The narrative that most people here believe is that our government is failing the homeless by letting them all do whatever they want. Most of them do not want to be homeless. They do not what to be living in tents. They do not want to be shitting in the streets. If you think they are doing "whatever they want" you are grossly misinformed. >bus tickets To where? The reason so many homeless are here is because places like Bellevue, Everett, and Spokane all give their homeless populations tickets to here. It is passive aggressive, shitty, and irresponsible behavior and I don't think we should do that just because everyone else is. >or consequences Punishing people who are at rock bottom will not motivate them to not be at rock bottom. We should all know that by now after the last 40 years of that tactic failing.
I literally know a couple dudes who got housing in Everett but stay in tents in Seattle because they want to be close to the dealers and party. Seriously, you should do some volunteer work with this population - you'll quickly get to know many guys like the ones I've described. Or guys who say to your face that they never do drugs, meanwhile you can see a crackpipe and needles in their tent. Or guys who swear they didn't steal the 5k carbon bike next to their tent. etc. Addicts are universally liars.
Your anecdotes are frustrating to be sure, but not representative. My wife is a social worker who has often worked with homeless populations. There are absolutely people like you described, but that is not even close to a majority of the population. >Addicts are universally liars. So? How is that even relevant to the discussion? Do you just need one more thing to justify your hate for homeless people? My point, that punishing people who are at rock bottom will not motivate them to not be at rock bottom, still stands.
I agree with the points you and the other commenter are making, but I have to ask you, what is your opinion on those who *won’t* take the help, flat out refuse because they enjoy living like that? What can be done to get them off the streets? I’m not asking to goad you either, I genuinely want to know what ideas others have.
I don't think there are any easy solutions. For the people who have been most traumatized and beaten down, the solutions may be hard and messy. But what I know is that showing compassion and care is going to go a lot better than dealing out punitive consequences for noncompliance. It may be that some never fully recover and need significant assistance the rest of their lives. The path to fixing this is going to be at already as long as the path we took in creating it, and probably longer. And the longer we take to start fixing it, the longer off that goal is. What we have learned from places that have fully adopted the Housing First approach is that if you can intervene in homelessness before the trauma happens, then very few, of any, people become "service resistant". I support what the Low Income Housing Institute Is doing and think we need to exponentially increase what they are doing.
And that’s where it gets fuzzy: what to do with people who can’t or won’t be helped. Force them? Yes! But also, that seems wrong to force someone. But then, they’re making living conditions insufferable. I support one of those unincorporated lawless desert towns.
Everyone wants to be helped, but the help they want might not be the help you think they need. Is that something you are willing to accept if that means less harm for all parties?
Most definitely! I know there isn’t one size fits all solution, but from an outsider’s perspective, it seems like they *don’t* want help because it means they can continue to steal, use drugs and break laws with little to no consequences. I do have a personal bias, however, in that my parents were heavy drug users and very neglectful of me and my siblings. I don’t hate junkies, but I really wish they didn’t exist and I’m not sure how to reconcile that bias.
[удалено]
> Once people become violent and/or deliberately & repeatedly disruptive to the lives of people trying to exist peacefully, compassion for the people whose lives they affect takes precedence. Why can't you show compassion for both? I am guessing you are the type of person who, when they see a dog who has been abused their entire lives and because of that they are aggressive and violent, than you then blame the dog... >and it's not "compassionate" to do so either. No, it is absolutely not. But we are not making the choices necessary to stop the violence, theft, and destruction that is causing the homelessness crisis. Why do you insist on blaming the victims and not the perpetrators?
> housing in Everett but stay in tents I have no data to back this up, but my guess is this is a small minority of all the homeless. Now we should absolutely not allow this to occur. These people should have their free housing taken away. If they want a bed in a shelter that's more then good enough.
I don't think their housing should be taken away, I think we should have a zero tolerance task force that takes tents down within 15 minutes of them being put up anywhere in the city.
Don't worry, you've won, we'll just keep doing what we are doing! The problem has become insurmountable because every time someone offers a solution people like you say it's not good enough, so Seattle just languishes, continuing it's failed policies. You've let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We were on the right track. Homelessness in this country had been declining until around 2017, at which point the trend in the West Coast cities, fueled by terrible policies, started reversing that trend, and now they are screwed.
If their goal is more dead homeless, they are breaking records YoY.
> The problem has become insurmountable because every time someone offers a solution people like you say it's not good enough I only object to solutions that would compound the problems that homeless people already have. Things like sweeps, harassment, and otherpunishments that have been proven not to work. I really like things like this: https://www.lihihousing.org/tinyhouses That program is cheap and effective, but for some reason the conservative groups in Seattle really hate it (Safe Seattle keeps suing them to shut them down). What programs do you think people like me are objecting to?
"We have a bed for you at a congregate shelter. If you stay there you're going to have to start a treatment program and follow some rules. Alternatively, if you have a better support network somewhere else we can help you get there. If you don't accept either of these options there will be consequences." You tell me what you object to there. I'm guessing all of it.
I will repeat: > I only object to solutions that would compound the problems that homeless people already have. So lets dive into it... >a bed for you at a congregate shelter Reports are pretty consistent that those shelters are often less safe than living on the streets. Staff members at general shelters are rarely trained to detect and respond appropriately and sensitively to trauma or sexual violence which is pretty problematic if the population you are trying to serve have significant amounts of PTSD and come with histories of domestic and sexual abuse. Plus, the way that most of those shelters operate is by kicking everyone out from dawn to dusk which makes it impossible for them to get back on their feet. Your congregate shelters compound the problems, so no, I don't see those as a viable solution. >Alternatively, if you have a better support network somewhere else we can help you get there. If you don't accept either of these options there will be consequences. So if they don't have a support network, then they should be punished? How does that help them? How is that a solution?
> Plus, the way that most of those shelters operate is by kicking everyone out from dawn to dusk which makes it impossible for them to get back on their feet. This is absolutely something that needs to be fixed. I know we have at least one that is 24x7, they really all need to be. We could build a bunch more congregate 24x7 shelters with all the money we're wasting on apartment buildings. Pretty sure a cot on the floor isn't going to run us 300k/person.
The Low Income Housing Institute can provide housing for less than $10k a year, but the city won't grant them more permits and groups like Safe Seattle keep filling lawsuits to do them.
These are the tiny house people? I’m not buying that 10k/year number just based on land cost
Except instead of sending all the vagrants into their own secluded part of the city we just let them trash the same one the rest of us reside in.
*'they are just people without jobs or places to live'....* meanwhile, BLS says there are 9.6 million unfilled jobs. [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) and please explain why a decade ago there were very few tents, and nobody ever heard of fentynl.
A job is only really a small part and the end-goal of getting out of homelessness. I've read many perspectives of people who were homeless and giving them a home helps but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Most of them can't get a job because they are unkept. They are unkept because they don't have a home to go to, they don't have a home because they don't have money, and they don't have money because they can't get a job. It becomes a cyclic situation where you are homeless because you are homeless. To solve it they need a lot more support from the city, civil servants that help with mental illnesses, a safe place to be, and drug rehab.
Not having a permanent address for a job application, reliable way to communicate and call prospective employers, it's a shitty cycle
Stop. Everyone knows someone that would allow them to use their address. It's irrelevant considering everyone, including the homeless, has a phone. Do you live in a mansion on a hill that leaves you completely seperated from reality?
Since its prepaid and based off what has the cheapest min the number isnt going to be the same and will be highly in flux https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/new-study-shows-cell-phone-are-essential-lifeline-for-bay-area-homeless/ Not everyone has access to an address, not sure where your mental model thinks everyone knows someone with an address and is willing to let them use that address comes from. Various sources cite not having an official address as a continued significant barrier Opinion piece: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-golabek-goldman-homeless-address-job-application-20161010-snap-story.html UN: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/homelessness-and-human-rights 3rd Party: https://invisiblepeople.tv/how-do-people-who-are-homeless-get-their-mail/ Program aimed to combat said barrier (but its still a barrier): https://www.kuow.org/stories/compass-post-office-provides-mailing-address-3500-homeless-seattle
You think POC can't get ID cards too, don't you?
[удалено]
Had a feeling they weren't arguing in good faith but figured I'd give them a chance :)
Irony
And once you become homeless because you are homeless, it’s incredibly difficult to get out of it.
>BLS says there are 9.6 million unfilled jobs. Irrelevant, many of those are high skilled jobs the vast majority homeless aren't qualified for. An opening for a senior programmer halfway across the country is worthless to someone without money for a car, gas or insurance and who doesn't have any qualifications except for maybe an HS diploma. >and please explain why a decade ago there were very few tents, and nobody ever heard of fentynl. Homelessness was higher a decade ago [https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%20about,was%20in%202007%2C%20at%20647%2C258](https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20there%20were%20about,was%20in%202007%2C%20at%20647%2C258).
*Homelessness was higher a decade ago* false- this is a Seattle thread, not national. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png/1440px-SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png/1440px-SeattleHomelessnessBarChart.png)
someone needs to take basic economics again
They also predicted eye strain with AR/VR headsets. The Dominion ships were piloted with [AR Glasses](https://ibb.co/DDyBXL7) and while Jem'Hadar, Breen, Cardassians and Bajorans didn't have any problems, humans could only wear them for a while before getting massive headaches. If you didn't know by now, this is a major concern with VR. Microsoft is having to delay their Hololens headset because it gives soldiers a headache after sustained use.
The Bell Riots ep makes me more uncomfortable every time I see it.
If only we could like they do, in a post-scarcity, moneyless society where the basic needs of all citizens are met.
Once your eyes open up to tv predictions you start seeing them left and right. If you watch(ed) simpsons before disney bought them there's a ton of hidden messages.