An observation regarding homeless in Seattle (Tacoma, Everett: 2013, felony, job market)

[CrazyDonkey]

All you can do is offer (could include a confidentiality agreement) - they might accept it, or give you a counter-offer. You'll need to maintain the impression that you, like others there, are looking at moving when your lease is up, rather than simply re-signing whatever they give you.

[Scrat335]

I also see a lot of people who seem to hang out a lot at some places but who seem to me to not be homeless as such.

There's an older gent I know and see often on construction sites that lives at a place called the Bread Of Life.

Bread Of Life Mission

He says he pays $5 a night for a bunk, dinner ect. The place is clean and EVERYONE showers nightly or you're obliged to leave. Last week I saw him and he was showing me pics of the new Ford Raptors. He wanted one. If he's been banking 4 digits a month for a long time he may be able to pay cash.

I think places like this are a solution to a lot of problems. I also wonder if this guy is smarter than me.

[cmswazey]

Here's a cool story--

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...form=hootsuite

[MarciaMarshaMarcia]

Originally Posted by cmswazey

Here's a cool story--

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...form=hootsuite

I love that!

[margaretBartle]

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

The fact is, the City doesn't have anywhere near enough money to tackle this problem, and extremely limited tools to address it.

Do you mean the city doesn't have enough money to make a dent in the problem, or the city doesn't have enough money to completely solve the whole problem?

There certainly are things the city could do to make it better.

Some people are nutters. If rents were $400/month, they couldn't do it.

Many people, though, could afford a place to live if rents were lower. I think it's very significant that there aren't any current studies on how many people are on the streets because of high housing costs rather than mental illness or incapacity.

The city could do a lot by bringing back the SRO - a room with a bed, a window, a chair and table, and a bathroom down the hall. $350/month. Maybe $500 a month for a bigger room with a double bed. Of course it would not be a Single Room Occupancy, but same idea...

Even more - barracks-style housing, with lockers and pay toilets. $100/month for the bed and locker, another $100/month for the showers and toilets.

Forget the case workers, just make sure there are no-nonsense burley guys to keep out the troublemakers.

That wouldn't clear out all the issues, but it sure would clear up a lot.

[DutchessCottonPuff]

There is the result of a study somewhere up this thread.. It had the math and was very informative to how many people are displaced/homeless for every $100 the rent is raised .

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by margaretBartle

Do you mean the city doesn't have enough money to make a dent in the problem, or the city doesn't have enough money to completely solve the whole problem?

There certainly are things the city could do to make it better.

Some people are nutters. If rents were $400/month, they couldn't do it.

Many people, though, could afford a place to live if rents were lower. I think it's very significant that there aren't any current studies on how many people are on the streets because of high housing costs rather than mental illness or incapacity.

The city could do a lot by bringing back the SRO - a room with a bed, a window, a chair and table, and a bathroom down the hall. $350/month. Maybe $500 a month for a bigger room with a double bed. Of course it would not be a Single Room Occupancy, but same idea...

Even more - barracks-style housing, with lockers and pay toilets. $100/month for the bed and locker, another $100/month for the showers and toilets.

Forget the case workers, just make sure there are no-nonsense burley guys to keep out the troublemakers.

That wouldn't clear out all the issues, but it sure would clear up a lot.

Under state law including the constitutional prohibition on "lending of credit, " the city doesn't have the legal tools to bring about these changes (some of which have been tried elsewhere and proven ineffective.)

The marketplace isn't going to build SROs and there are no external funds (State or federal) that can be used to pay for them in anywhere like the amounts needed. The City can use local revenues (levies, taxes, general fund) to conduit funds to nonprofits to build these kinds of units, but those funds are (rightly in my mind) targeted to housing homeless families with children rather than creating shelter beds for people now living on the street.

Offering one-liners and "simple" solutions that ignore the realities of state law and public finance limitations doesn't help the problem IMO. Self-education is the first step.

[Scrat335]

Originally Posted by margaretBartle

Do you mean the city doesn't have enough money to make a dent in the problem, or the city doesn't have enough money to completely solve the whole problem?

There certainly are things the city could do to make it better.

Some people are nutters. If rents were $400/month, they couldn't do it.

Many people, though, could afford a place to live if rents were lower. I think it's very significant that there aren't any current studies on how many people are on the streets because of high housing costs rather than mental illness or incapacity.

The city could do a lot by bringing back the SRO - a room with a bed, a window, a chair and table, and a bathroom down the hall. $350/month. Maybe $500 a month for a bigger room with a double bed. Of course it would not be a Single Room Occupancy, but same idea...

Even more - barracks-style housing, with lockers and pay toilets. $100/month for the bed and locker, another $100/month for the showers and toilets.

Forget the case workers, just make sure there are no-nonsense burley guys to keep out the troublemakers.

That wouldn't clear out all the issues, but it sure would clear up a lot.

Excellent points one and all. It would also help young people get on their feet. Rent has gotten so insane as of late a lot of 20 somethings simply have to pay %50 or more of their incomes to a landlord. They'll be on the treadmill all their lives for the most part. They can't save money. A option for then to live in a barracks or something else would do a world of good.

Now there's too many restrictions when it comes to alternatives to what is standard in the housing market. Put some competition back into it too.

[folkguitarist555]

Seattle has become a very liberal, rich, and elitist city, with a soaring cost of living, some of the most expensive real estate and apartment rents in the USA nowadays. No wonder there is a homeless problem. If one wants affordability, one would have to relocate to the midwest or to the south. Western WA has become a ridiculoulsy over priced, over crowded city. Even Tacoma and Everett have become too expensive.

[peequi]

Originally Posted by folkguitarist555

Seattle has become a very liberal, rich, and elitist city, with a soaring cost of living, some of the most expensive real estate and apartment rents in the USA nowadays. No wonder there is a homeless problem. If one wants affordability, one would have to relocate to the midwest or to the south. Western WA has become a ridiculoulsy over priced, over crowded city. Even Tacoma and Everett have become too expensive.

But does expensive mean homelessness? I mean I could understand people downsizing, moving back in with parents, having to share a studio with 1 or 2 other people. But straight up homelessness is not caused by housing and rent prices. It is a mental issue, I mean seriously, wouldn't a sane person do anything possible to not live on the streets? Here comes the angry replies....lol

That is my theory.