Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle has one of the worst homeless problems of any developed city in the world. It's downtown is pretty bad, Tacoma and Everett can also be pretty bad in certain areas as well.
In January (when the point in time surveys are taken) Multnomah County had slightly more homeless people per capita than King County. You'll see similar numbers in most major urban areas. Seattle is just in the pack.
Note the distinction between "homeless" and - for lack of a better term - "street people." They are different things. Homelessness in Seattle is multi-faceted, and like the rest of the country, includes households living in rent-assisted transitional housing, including a great number of families with kids.
Seattle has one of the most spoiled homeless populations in the country.. However, after being in Tacoma yesterday, I can attest that Tacoma has a "WORSE" homeless problem. I haven't hung around Tacoma in 2 years, but the lower downtown area is looking utterly depressing and very dilapidated. The homeless there looked much less healthy. Yes, I know that sounds funny, but most homeless I see in Seattle are fed well, clothed decently, but in Tacoma they look strung out, dirt poor and like they have a lot of s*** to deal with each day. I hung out with a homeless backpacker guy at coffeeshop in Tacoma a couple years back who showed me his knife wound he received by some psycho who stabbed him while he was sleeping under a bridge in Tacoma passing through.
And, I would take the grungy, smelly, spoiled and the few cuckoo homeless people we have in Seattle compared to the violent, cracked out and angry homeless people I encountered in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even, Burnside Street in Portland had a much scarier homeless population than what I have seen in Seattle. People routinely got shot dead on Burnside St near the bridge and I would watch crack dealers use their own 5 or 6 year old kids as lookouts for them to make deals.
Yeah, I really know what you mean regarding Seattle's homeless being "spoiled". I mean, I've only been here a few weeks and I can't count the number of people I've seen sleeping on the sidewalk on top of a cardboard box or peeing in public... Man, I sure wish I was spoiled like that, these homeless people are really living in the laps of luxury and have really got this loophole figured out....
This is why Seattle has such a homeless problem, because of delusional thinking like yours. Seattle's government has obviously not done a good job with their homeless program and very few cities in the nation have as big of a homeless problem as Seattle does.
In January (when the point in time surveys are taken) Multnomah County had slightly more homeless people per capita than King County. You'll see similar numbers in most major urban areas. Seattle is just in the pack.
Note the distinction between "homeless" and - for lack of a better term - "street people." They are different things. Homelessness in Seattle is multi-faceted, and like the rest of the country, includes households living in rent-assisted transitional housing, including a great number of families with kids.
I'm not sure why you're throwing Portland into the mix, but anyways.
You go straight to a website created by King County where of course they're going to glorify themselves and not compare their stats with the rest of the country's, and I'm cherry picking?.... Here's national data where you can see how poorly Seattle stacks up against the rest of the nation...
I'm not sure why you're throwing Portland into the mix, but anyways.
Because it was easy and accessible. I could have pulled up PIT ("point in time") data from many other cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowTune
You go straight to a website created by King County where of course they're going to glorify themselves and not compare their stats with the rest of the country's, and I'm cherry picking?.... Here's national data where you can see how poorly Seattle stacks up against the rest of the nation...
The "point in time" survey and report - using the same methodology - is required by HUD for all jurisdictions receiving HUD homeless assistance funding, so it's not something that Seattle or King County makes up nor can use to "glorify" anything. It's done every year, unlike most other sources (such as yours) that use census data. PIT surveys generally have greater accuracy and statistical reliability than other approaches, because homeless people tend to be mobile and can often be under- or over-counted when using other methodologies.
Note especially the tables starting around page 11 in this report. While Seattle is among the leaders in total homeless population, it isn't when you look at unsheltered (i.e. street sleeping) population (Exhibit 2-11,) and it's among the cities that have improved the most in reducing unsheltered conditions with families (Exhibit 3.7). And when you start looking at per capita instead of raw numbers, Seattle fares even better. (Which is not to say it's good, just not as much of an outlier as the raw numbers might suggest.)
Homelessness in the US, like in Seattle, is complex and not something one can summarize in sound bite or bumper-sticker-sized expressions, frustrating as that might be to some.
Because it was easy and accessible. I could have pulled up PIT ("point in time") data from many other cities.
The "point in time" survey and report - using the same methodology - is required by HUD for all jurisdictions receiving HUD homeless assistance funding, so it's not something that Seattle or King County makes up nor can use to "glorify" anything. It's done every year, unlike most other sources (such as yours) that use census data. PIT surveys generally have greater accuracy and statistical reliability than other approaches, because homeless people tend to be mobile and can often be under- or over-counted when using other methodologies.
Note especially the tables starting around page 11 in this report. While Seattle is among the leaders in total homeless population, it isn't when you look at unsheltered (i.e. street sleeping) population (Exhibit 2-11,) and it's among the cities that have improved the most in reducing unsheltered conditions with families (Exhibit 3.7). And when you start looking at per capita instead of raw numbers, Seattle fares even better. (Which is not to say it's good, just not as much of an outlier as the raw numbers might suggest.)
Homelessness in the US, like in Seattle, is complex and not something one can summarize in sound bite or bumper-sticker-sized expressions, frustrating as that might be to some.
Ummm, Seattle most definitely ranks poorly when it comes to it's unsheltered homeless. And I like the way you cut out certain portions of my post.
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
^^^ The above link provides stats at the state level, but as you can see from this map, the vast majority of Washington's homeless are in the Seattle area. There are only 4 states that have more unsheltered homeless than Seattle....
The HUD link you provided also pointed out that Seattle fairs very poorly with not only it's homeless individuals but it's total number of homeless families, unaccompanied homeless children, and homeless veterans. You're saying that because it didn't rank in the top four major cities with the highest number of unsheltered homeless (according to the link you provided), it must not be that bad.... That's ridiculous.
Seattle is also among the worst cities for people who are homeless and trying to get back on their feet. Look at the amount of people who are chronically homeless in Washington and that should tell you all that you need to know about Seattle and it's programs that assist homeless people with getting back on their feet.
Homelessness isn't a complicated problem to solve... It's an expensive problem to solve and when it comes down to it. Seattle's government is more interested in building "The Mark" and other unnecessary buildings than it is with spending money to help homeless people.
Yeah, I really know what you mean regarding Seattle's homeless being "spoiled". I mean, I've only been here a few weeks and I can't count the number of people I've seen sleeping on the sidewalk on top of a cardboard box or peeing in public... Man, I sure wish I was spoiled like that, these homeless people are really living in the laps of luxury and have really got this loophole figured out....
This is why Seattle has such a homeless problem, because of delusional thinking like yours. Seattle's government has obviously not done a good job with their homeless program and very few cities in the nation have as big of a homeless problem as Seattle does.
Considering I was homeless at one time and you probably never were, I probably know a heck of a lot more about being homeless than you do.
Also, considering the fact you were laughing about the death of 6,000,000 Jews, including children, in which you snickered saying "GOOD" in your last post, I hardly consider you the humanitarian.
Many of the ones living in cardboard have serious mental issues and choose to live that way. However, you overlooked the large number of homeless people who have nice sleeping bags, tents , guitars, smartphones , smoking weed and drinking booze on the sidewalks underneath closed stores who give them places to live. They throw their garbage all over the place and instead of cleaning up after themselves and being respectful to the neighborhoods who give them places to live, they turn the place into a filthy pig ranch.
Considering I was homeless at one time and you probably never were, I probably know a heck of a lot more about being homeless than you do.
Also, considering the fact you were laughing about the death of 6,000,000 Jews, including children, in which you snickered saying "GOOD" in your last post, I hardly consider you the humanitarian.
Many of the ones living in cardboard have serious mental issues and choose to live that way. However, you overlooked the large number of homeless people who have nice sleeping bags, tents , guitars, smartphones , smoking weed and drinking booze on the sidewalks underneath closed stores who give them places to live. They throw their garbage all over the place and instead of cleaning up after themselves and being respectful to the neighborhoods who give them places to live, they turn the place into a filthy pig ranch.
It's ok, go ahead and spew your ignorance.
I don't remember saying that it was a good thing that 6M Jewish people died. It's not the Jews who I have a problem with.
Anyways, I'm sure the people sleeping outside on cardboard boxes eventually developed mental problems. I would develop mental problems as well if I lived like that in a state with one of the highest unsheltered homeless populations in the nation...
I don't want to have a fight about how Seattle does or doesn't help fight homelessness, or whether Seattle does better or worse at it than other places. The problem is national, even global. After a career in the field - building and operating hundreds of units of shelter, transitional and permanent housing for homeless and low income people in western Washington (for a nonprofit not operating in Seattle, but close by) - I came to the conclusion that it's primarily an income issue rather than a housing issue, and a federal one at that, and that it shouldn't be the cities that are left to deal with it.
Say what you will about Seattle's response to homelessness (and you need to understand that in Washington cities have very, very little legal clout in dealing with the cluster of problems that lead to homelessness) the chickens really come home to roost at the feet of the federal government. Since the Reagan years, the feds have backed away from effective solutions to homelessness, first by reducing funding for programs that actually work in favor of schemes that "incentivize" private investment in affordable housing through tweaking the tax code, then by limiting assistance to homeless people in such a way that single, non-elderly, non-disabled people have basically no income support that will qualify them even for the most deeply subsidized housing programs. Since the 1970s, the "single non-elderly" person has been virtually impossible to house in government-assisted housing.
Seattle doesn't have the resources to meet the needs of the chronically homeless; instead, like most other cities, it tries to leverage the tools it has - principally zoning and development control - to extract money for "affordable" housing out of developers. Or it asks the residents to pass housing levies that might let the city throw a few thousand dollars per unit to projects where each unit needs dozens, even hundred of thousands of dollars over its lifetime. Politically, it's much more palatable to say that housing levies help the "working poor" or "low income families" than it is to say the taxpayers are paying for treatment for homeless alcoholics in Pioneer Square.
The Gates Foundation tried to "eliminate homelessness by 2020" with a giant program of grant assistance to nonprofits in the Seattle region, and while it did some good, we're basically back where we started. Congress has cut back on housing funding big time, and even the tax-incentive methods for housing production have lost their effectiveness as fewer high net worth investors had any appetite for income tax relief following the economic crisis. Rental assistance for low-income families, such as the Section 8 program, are high on the list of programs Congress loves to cut.
And that's just on the housing side. Similar issues exist in the mental health, medical, employment, child care, and other arenas that generate and perpetuate homelessness. The feds (and maybe this reflects the public's rather simplistic views) have made a moral pronouncement that homelessness is a sign of weakness on the part of the homeless - i.e. blaming the victim - and therefore "not my problem." 250 years ago the line went, "let them eat cake," but now it's "take personal responsibility" regardless of how the homeless or hungry person got that way.
Blaming the City for the issue or for some perceived lack of effort to address it is really off base. In my view, given its political nature and the VERY limited toolbox it has available, the City is doing okay. The United States, not so much.
I don't want to have a fight about how Seattle does or doesn't help fight homelessness, or whether Seattle does better or worse at it than other places. The problem is national, even global. After a career in the field - building and operating hundreds of units of shelter, transitional and permanent housing for homeless and low income people in western Washington (for a nonprofit not operating in Seattle, but close by) - I came to the conclusion that it's primarily an income issue rather than a housing issue, and a federal one at that, and that it shouldn't be the cities that are left to deal with it.
The burden definitely falls (and rightfully so) on the state and ultimately the city... Just like other tasks such as law enforcement, public transportation, public libraries, local ordinances etc... If your opinion was true, that it's a federal problem, then there wouldn't be so many other cities outperforming Seattle in regards to helping their homeless population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo
Say what you will about Seattle's response to homelessness (and you need to understand that in Washington cities have very, very little legal clout in dealing with the cluster of problems that lead to homelessness) the chickens really come home to roost at the feet of the federal government. Since the Reagan years, the feds have backed away from effective solutions to homelessness, first by reducing funding for programs that actually work in favor of schemes that "incentivize" private investment in affordable housing through tweaking the tax code, then by limiting assistance to homeless people in such a way that single, non-elderly, non-disabled people have basically no income support that will qualify them even for the most deeply subsidized housing programs. Since the 1970s, the "single non-elderly" person has been virtually impossible to house in government-assisted housing.
City governments put money towards what they feel is important, or what will benefit their leaders personal pocket books. Seattle's government has not committed enough resources to helping it's homeless population because obviously they don't feel it's important, period. It has nothing to do with "legal clout". I don't believe for one second that Seattle is so hard up for money that it would be impossible to create better programs and funding for homeless people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo
Seattle doesn't have the resources to meet the needs of the chronically homeless; instead, like most other cities, it tries to leverage the tools it has - principally zoning and development control - to extract money for "affordable" housing out of developers. Or it asks the residents to pass housing levies that might let the city throw a few thousand dollars per unit to projects where each unit needs dozens, even hundred of thousands of dollars over its lifetime. Politically, it's much more palatable to say that housing levies help the "working poor" or "low income families" than it is to say the taxpayers are paying for treatment for homeless alcoholics in Pioneer Square.
The Gates Foundation tried to "eliminate homelessness by 2020" with a giant program of grant assistance to nonprofits in the Seattle region, and while it did some good, we're basically back where we started. Congress has cut back on housing funding big time, and even the tax-incentive methods for housing production have lost their effectiveness as fewer high net worth investors had any appetite for income tax relief following the economic crisis. Rental assistance for low-income families, such as the Section 8 program, are high on the list of programs Congress loves to cut.
I wonder how much of that money was misallocated on some needless multi-purpose building that didn't benefit the homeless at all, or some other building like "The Mark"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo
And that's just on the housing side. Similar issues exist in the mental health, medical, employment, child care, and other arenas that generate and perpetuate homelessness. The feds (and maybe this reflects the public's rather simplistic views) have made a moral pronouncement that homelessness is a sign of weakness on the part of the homeless - i.e. blaming the victim - and therefore "not my problem." 250 years ago the line went, "let them eat cake," but now it's "take personal responsibility" regardless of how the homeless or hungry person got that way.
I definitely believe that for the vast majority of homeless adults, most of the fault for their situation lies with them. Most of them could have made better life decisions and as a result, could have avoided homelessness. I also believe that there are quite a few adults doing well in life who wouldn't be if not for their parents or someone else who financially supported them through tough times, regardless of their poor life decisions or "growing pains". Not everyone had (or will have) that luxury in life.
Personal accountability should be a part of every homeless program. So in other words, simply giving them a bed and a hot plate won't take care of the underlying issue if they still don't have clean presentable clothing, a place to put their belonging when they go interview for employment, and a place they can take a shower during reasonable hours.... There needs to be programs that give people the freedom to look for work, get on their own two feet, become self-sufficient tax paying members of society, and really turn their lives around. But if someone wants to get help, they need to be willing to help themselves and in turn have access to programs that give them a way to get up and out of homelessness. Helping the homeless is also probably one of the better financial investments a city can make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo
Blaming the City for the issue or for some perceived lack of effort to address it is really off base. In my view, given its political nature and the VERY limited toolbox it has available, the City is doing okay. The United States, not so much.
How can you say this when Seattle is doing far worse than the national average?? You do realize that Seattle is very close to the bottom on nearly every homeless statistic, right? I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who's off base here. Obviously, successful homeless programs can and have been run at the city level all throughout this country. Again, if Seattle is doing all this expanding and building, then they must have 'some' money at their disposal... In large part, Seattle's government has a bigger homeless problem than most other cities because of their lack of effort and focused attention on truly eradicating or getting a hold on their homeless problem. As you stated, there are people out there who have this, "It's their problem" mentality concerning homelessness. I can guarantee you that 'some' of those people are in government and have the power to turn this thing around but won't, not because of inability, but because of apathy.
You stated that you worked to assist the homeless in West Washington, I have no doubt that this has probably caused you to be a little biased. I also have no doubt that you worked hard and that your heart was in the right place, as was the case with the people who you worked with. But unfortunately, the people whose hearts are in the right place usually aren't the ones who have the resources and the power to make real change.
Seattle has an elitist mentality, and certain people are considered disposable in society. The people who have the power and resources to change things simply don't care enough about the homeless to do so, it's just that simple.
Seattle is also among the worst cities for people who are homeless and trying to get back on their feet. Look at the amount of people who are chronically homeless in Washington and that should tell you all that you need to know about Seattle and it's programs that assist homeless people with getting back on their feet.
Your pointless rhetoric makes no sense.
Citing statistics which suggest that the homeless tend to congregate in climates where it is most comfortable to be outside for most of the year does nothing but clarify Seattle's mild weather.
Furthermore, when speaking of a homeless problem, it is always done from the standpoint of the rest of society, so whether or not they are "trying to get back on their feet" means nothing in terms of the homeless problem.
None of the data you cite has any reflection at all on "Seattle's programs" for the homeless.
There are more homeless in Seattle per capita than in Wyoming, Montana or the Dakotas simply because the climate is more tolerable for most of the year.
For it is clear to most others that you don't have a clue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
