WA voters rank homelessness as the No. 1 issue lawmakers must address (Seattle: affordable apartments, rent)

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

They come to Seattle because they hear that there are jobs here.

Telling people who want to work to move to where there are fewer jobs is weird thinking in my book.

Are the homeless people going to work every day? I would say not many.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

Not ignoring it. That part of the problem doesn't need fixed. There are many programs full of good people available for those who are capable of making good use of help.

Actually, help is prioritized for those who need it the most (the most vulnerable), of which there are many (more than the available help), which means that the able-bodied and the able-minded, the mere "down-on-their-luck", are likely to get short-shrift.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Are the homeless people going to work every day? I would say not many.

I don't know that there is any good count. But I do know that the number is not zero.

Because I am shortly to take off on a year or so of traveling, I follow RV dweller forums. There are many folks who are full-time RV dwellers who work for their income. Including in Seattle. Now some do this by choice, but some do it because their car is the only roof that they own, and they can't afford to rent. And increasingly, people with fixed incomes are finding themselves in the same situation. After all, where would you prefer to live - in a roach-infested apartment in a slummy neighborhood or in a decent RV where you can escape a bad neighbor by simply turning a key?

Ironically, given that we are talking Seattle here, Amazon is a company that actively seeks out RV dwellers for temporary warehouse jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...working-amazon

The mistake that I think people are making is assuming that the huge growth in homelessness - or houselessness - is due to a massive increase in addicts and the mentally ill. It isn't. There's a whole range of people we are talking about here, from people who could rent an apartment if they wanted to, to people who are hanging on by their last fingernail. And interestingly, these folk are forming their own community and the ones who have more do their best to help those who have less. But the need is daunting. And the law is not keeping up, because it assumes what most people here are assuming - an upstanding citizen lives in a house/apartment and only low-lifers don't.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

The mistake that I think people are making is assuming that the huge growth in homelessness - or houselessness - is due to a massive increase in addicts and the mentally ill. It isn't. There's a whole range of people we are talking about here, from people who could rent an apartment if they wanted to, to people who are hanging on by their last fingernail. And interestingly, these folk are forming their own community and the ones who have more do their best to help those who have less. But the need is daunting. And the law is not keeping up, because it assumes what most people here are assuming - an upstanding citizen lives in a house/apartment and only low-lifers don't.

No one is worried about low income nomadic types living in legitimate hookups in an RV.

We're worried about those who are camping in public spaces in growing heaps of trash and stolen and discarded debris that there doesn't seem to be a solution for.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

No one is worried about low income nomadic types living in legitimate hookups in an RV.


We're worried about those who are camping in public spaces in growing heaps of trash and stolen and discarded debris.

But "low income nomadic types living in legitimate hookups in an RV" are lumped in with the intractable homeless as far as the law is concerned.

I fully get why people don't want trash in their neighborhoods. I wouldn't like it - or put up with it - either. But clearly, something is amiss when people with incomes who used to be able to afford to rent in Seattle as recently as 5 years ago can no longer afford it on those same incomes. All those building cranes you see everywhere? It's high-end apartments/condos they are building. Often on property which once housed lower-income people.

[Diana Holbrook]

What's your solution to that?



Mine is that there is little that should draw low income people to live in downtown Seattle. Where would they work? They could afford to live better if they'd seek employment outside of the city... Many of the entry level jobs have moved to the suburbs and wider sprawl areas anyway. People who want jobs and want affordable living should go where the Costcos and Walmarts and Amazon warehouses are. They aren't downtown.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

I don't know that there is any good count. But I do know that the number is not zero.

Because I am shortly to take off on a year or so of traveling, I follow RV dweller forums. There are many folks who are full-time RV dwellers who work for their income. Including in Seattle. Now some do this by choice, but some do it because their car is the only roof that they own, and they can't afford to rent. And increasingly, people with fixed incomes are finding themselves in the same situation. After all, where would you prefer to live - in a roach-infested apartment in a slummy neighborhood or in a decent RV where you can escape a bad neighbor by simply turning a key?

Ironically, given that we are talking Seattle here, Amazon is a company that actively seeks out RV dwellers for temporary warehouse jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...working-amazon

The mistake that I think people are making is assuming that the huge growth in homelessness - or houselessness - is due to a massive increase in addicts and the mentally ill. It isn't. There's a whole range of people we are talking about here, from people who could rent an apartment if they wanted to, to people who are hanging on by their last fingernail. And interestingly, these folk are forming their own community and the ones who have more do their best to help those who have less. But the need is daunting. And the law is not keeping up, because it assumes what most people here are assuming - an upstanding citizen lives in a house/apartment and only low-lifers don't.

I am not assuming all homeless are drug addicts or mentally ill. Some are, maybe more than the average, but not all. How is it fair to provide free or very low cost housing to those that don't work or work minimally? I'm in Woodinville and we have a tent city, one of about a dozen in the metro, that moved from Avondale over to Woodinville Duvall Rd. They stay in church parking lots, have large, nice white tents, bathrooms, showers and a shared kitchen. I'm sure it's nothing fancy but it's there for them. I don't begrudge them that either. They seem to be keeping to themselves and I would imagine the church brings them in in cold weather. There's also tiny house villages, maybe just a couple, I'm not sure.

But does it make sense to go beyond that when people could go to another location (on a free bus) where they can afford an apartment and get a modest job? Seattle is NOT the only place with jobs. We need to stop touting the Seattle economy, it only encourages people who can't afford it to come here. I lean left, this isn't the rantings of a right winger. We just have to be realistic about how much the city/state can do when we are also trying to increase funding for mass transit which increases the quality of life for everyone. Tent cities? Fine. Buses to another location? Good. But to say we are somehow failing our homeless is not fair IMO.

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

What's your solution to that?

Mine is that there is little that should draw low income people to live in downtown Seattle. Where would they work? They could afford to live better if they'd seek employment outside of the city... Many of the entry level jobs have moved to the suburbs and wider sprawl areas anyway. People who want jobs and want affordable living should go where the Costcos and Walmarts and Amazon warehouses are. They aren't downtown.

I agree. I honestly think some of the appeal is that it is so pretty here, the access to water, they sit in libraries during the day and use the internet, they get food stamps that require minimal work, the temperatures aren't (usually) too extreme and people are generally polite. Should we locate them to a place that is more managed? I don't know. I want to be fair to them but fair to us too. I want the sick to get help and I want the ones that can work to get work. But we can't literally adopt an endless supply of people who see Seattle as an easy mark. Maybe moving them to a managed location is the fairest way for everyone. They can/should still have access to a bus ticket out to some other location.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I agree. I honestly think some of the appeal is that it is so pretty here, the access to water, they sit in libraries during the day and use the internet, they get food stamps that require minimal work, the temperatures aren't (usually) too extreme and people are generally polite. Should we locate them to a place that is more managed? I don't know. I want to be fair to them but fair to us too. I want the sick to get help and I want the ones that can work to get work. But we can't literally adopt an endless supply of people who see Seattle as an easy mark. Maybe moving them to a managed location is the fairest way for everyone. They can/should still have access to a bus ticket out to some other location.

I still think we have two distinct groups that should not get mixed up because the solutions are very different.

One is low income employable people... Their issues aren't new and the solutions for them are really not that hard and there are tried and true programs to help them. Give to those programs. Support them.

The new problem are the unemployable, addicted and criminal element who are not seeking to better themselves. They are camping, trashing every place they go, filling public spaces with stolen bicycle parts and drug needles. They are looking for their next mark. Many used to be productive but have become ruined by drugs, I am convinced that many are the worst cases from other cities who have been offered a ticket here. I honestly think that has to stop. It's irresponsible and deplorable, whether it's importing or exporting. We need another solution for them.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

I still think we have two distinct groups that should not get mixed up because the solutions are very different.

One is low income employable poor people... Their issues aren't new and the solutions for them are really not that hard and there are tried and true programs to help them. Give to those programs. Support them.

The new problem are the unemployable, addicted and criminal element who are not seeking to better themselves. They are camping, trashing every place they go, filling public spaces with stolen bicycle parts and drug needles. They are looking for their next mark. Many used to be productive but have become ruined by drugs, I am convinced that many are the worst cases from other cities who have been offered a ticket here. I honestly think that has to stop. It's irresponsible and deplorable, whether it's importing or exporting. We need another solution for them.

For the first group, how generous should we be? At what point does it stop making sense to pay for someone to live here when it's nothing more than "it's pretty, I want to live here but I can't afford it"?

[Diana Holbrook]

Very generous for a limited amount of time. The best programs are privately funded and have the best flexibility to fit particular circumstances. None of these programs should become a permanent way of life.