Seattle is dying

[Flopper]

Typical. Since you can't articulate a thesis, then I am not watching your video. Just that simple.

Thank you OL.

There is no reason to watch it. KOMO is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting whose been in bed with Trump since he started campaigning. It's a hatchet job. Sinclair's goal has been to counteract the bias by major networks by broadcasting biased programs at the local level. This is a good example.

Although the video continuously blames the city administration, mayor, and city counsel, and the courts, nowhere in the video did they interview the chief of police, the mayor, city councilmen, or anyone from justice. Nowhere in the video did they address what is being done to prevent homelessness.

The only solution the video offered was to jail the homeless, which include nearly 3000 families with women and children. Most of Seattle homeless have never been charged with a crime yet the video see the jail as the solution.

Did the miss the part where 100 individuals are responsible for 3,600 criminal cases in the last 6 - 12 months?

I think if you look at those cases, you'll find they are mostly petty crimes such as vagrancy, disorderly conduct, sleeping on public property, illicit drug use which carry a small fine or a short time in jail which is exactly what the prep is hoping for, a few weeks or months in a bed off the streets and out the cold. For the chronic homeless jail is not a deterrent. For the city it's a costly punishment that does no good at all. As one judge said, for the cost of prosecuting, providing a defense attorney, court expenses, and jail we could put these people up at the Hilton for 3 months and save the city money.

To continue and justify this is ludicrous! No one is denying they need help, but this isn't helping them. What you're saying is "It's okay to destroy the environment you occupy and the people who you affect it's just too bad for them", that's a recipe for disaster. The laws are to protect the innocent, in this documentary its quit clear plenty of innocent people are affected negatively and the elected leadership of Seattle is oblivious to their constituents. We will not survive as a nation with this lack of logic...

If these homeless people were put on work gangs to clean up their shit, they would go elsewhere.

Even if you could do that legally, it doesn't solve the problem. It only transfers it to another city.

 

[Flopper]

just sayin'

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

 

[Marianne]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Don't care, Liberal land gets what it deserves.

 

[denmark]

Wh

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

That is not what it's about. As it says in the article and in the TV programs, why aren't we doing more to prevent crime, solve the homeless problem, and deal with drug abuse. These are major issues with liberals. These are homegrown problems and are not the result of migration.

I've lived in Seattle for years and what I have seen is a gross misallocation of resources, 3.3 billion dollars for a tunnel in the downtown section and one sports stadium after another and years of procrastination on the decision to expand light rail which will cost the city hundreds millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with these projects but the city needs to make crime, drugs, and homelessness a priority.

Just for the sake of discussion... when you say 'make homelessness a priority'... what exactly do you mean by that? What would you expect them to do?

Crime is straight forward enough. Enforce the laws, and hire more police.

But when you say drugs... are you in favor of legalizing drugs, or pushing more people into prison for drug offenses?

When I say make the homelessness a priority, I mean we should follow the plan such as has been used in Salt Lake City (google it for details) which means provide housing for the chronic homeless defined as over 1 year of living on the streets with documented physical or mental disabilities and addiction to drugs or alcohol. This will cover most of the people that live on the streets of downtown Seattle as well as most other major cities. It requires both building domiciles and support after the people move in. Support is critical in helping these people get some form of work to pay their living expenses. The success rate is about 50% which is good for this type social service.

For non-chronic homelessness there is no real program because non-chronic homelessness is defined as being intermittent. A person loses their means of support and they are homeless a month or so, then they they get support through a job, family, or government support for few months, then they are on the streets again. Unfortunately, there is no prescribe program for this type of homelessness. We have to rely on other social welfare programs.

No, I am not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, PCP, Cocaine, Heroine, etc. Our currently recognized drug programs and at risk programs have a good record of success which about 40% to 60%.

But it all boils down to having the money. When you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

I was looking into the Salt Lake City deal, and discovered two articles that basically... shattered the entire concept.

The first from Huffpost....
Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again | HuffPost

The decline of homelessness, was more a factor of changing definitions of who was counted as homeless, and who was not.

In short, the dramatic decline in homelessness, was largely fiction. That doesn't mean they didn't move many people off the street and into subsidized apartments and government funded shelters. They did.

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

However, even there the solution was not a long term fix.

10 years ago when they came up with subsidizing apartments, many land owners faced with the economic down turn, and loss of tenants, were more than willing to accept low rents from government subsidized renters. Today that isn't the case.

The government has run out of money. They simply can't afford this anymore, and people are back on the street, and in larger numbers than before.

Additionally, the government shelters have ended up being home to the cartels which have set up shop for their favorite customers.

They are now just feeding money from the tax payers, through the homeless shelter occupants, right into the hands of the drug cartels. That is not a plan.

Even if it was a plan, the government simply doesn't have the money for more low cost apartments, or more shelters.

So unless you have more information, I'm labeling that idea a bust.

As I said, programs such as this have a success rate of about 50%, certainly not 91% as was claimed. Seattle, and other cities have been studying what Salt Lake City has done and how it can be improved. The simple fact is no one has come up with a really effective program for chronic homelessness. We know the things that don't solve the problem such as jail, transporting, more homeless shelters, and job programs.

Seattle is now requiring that 5% to 11% of all new housing units be low income housing. This is not likely to have much effect on the chronic homeless but it may reduce the numbers in the future because essentially all of the chronic homeless began as non-chronic.

I understand that homelessness in USA has increased dramatically in past few decades, and the asset/income inequality has also increased, along with the population.

Perhaps it is the government’s role to deal with this society problem issue, but what exactly were the “causes” of the increasing homeless problem, and how to mitigate it?

Step 1 is social science funding and research. Who are these homeless people and how did they get that way??

Can they be helped after becoming chronically homeless, or are they mentally sick, committed to crime due to their inability to get a job?
Are they raised in families with uneducated single mothers, or in poor neighborhoods with gangs as attractive options?
Would planned parenthood help, with significant investment by the local and national government?
Does anyone cold-blooded really care unless they are bothered by the problem?

 

[Flopper]

Typical, watch the video, then tell me they’re enforcing the laws! Until then, stay off the thread...

Typical. Since you can't articulate a thesis, then I am not watching your video. Just that simple.

Thank you OL.

There is no reason to watch it. KOMO is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting whose been in bed with Trump since he started campaigning. It's a hatchet job. Sinclair's goal has been to counteract the bias by major networks by broadcasting biased programs at the local level. This is a good example.
Although the video continuously blames the city administration, mayor, and city counsel, and the courts, nowhere in the video did they interview the chief of police, the mayor, city councilmen, or anyone from justice. Nowhere in the video did they address what is being done to prevent homelessness.

The only solution the video offered was to jail the homeless, which include nearly 3000 families with women and children. Most of Seattle homeless have never been charged with a crime yet the video see the jail as the solution.

Did the miss the part where 100 individuals are responsible for 3,600 criminal cases in the last 6 - 12 months?

I think if you look at those cases, you'll find they are mostly petty crimes such as vagrancy, disorderly conduct, sleeping on public property, illicit drug use which carry a small fine or a short time in jail which is exactly what the prep is hoping for, a few weeks or months in a bed off the streets and out the cold. For the chronic homeless jail is not a deterrent. For the city it's a costly punishment that does no good at all. As one judge said, for the cost of prosecuting, providing a defense attorney, court expenses, and jail we could put these people up at the Hilton for 3 months and save the city money.

Some are nuisance crimes, a lot seem to be property crimes (trespass, breaks ins/thefts) which are aggravating to the property owners, while any crimes of violence such as assaults of any type, I consider serious even if they are only misdemeanors. Taking a crap is someone's doorway is just nasty in addition ot being a health hazard. We don't allow people to let their dogs take a crap anywhere they please without the owner picking up after them so why would we let human beings who really should know better do so without any repercussions?

Do you work with the homeless or advocate for them? I once volunteered 12 hours overnight in a women's shelter at Temple De Hirsh Sinai and if no one told you, I think most people would be surprised to discover these women were homeless. On the other hand though I've worked in a very high end retail establishment in Pacific Place and there were people there always up to something and far too many of them felt it necessary to challenge the authority of some of us. That is one of the reasons why I could see the writing on the wall when Starbucks announced that you no longer had to be a "customer" to come in and use their restrooms. The paramedics and/or the police used to come out on a fairly regular basis due to people overdosing in the restrooms and doing all sort of other things which oftentimes created an impediment for legitimate customers, not just in our store but throughout the mall.

Yes, I have worked with the homeless years ago and more recently in a food bank. I don't see any solution for chronic homelessness. Most of these of people are beyond help, too many years of substance abuse and mental illness. However, a lot can done to help the non-chronic homelessness.

A large percent of non-chronic homelessness is women and children.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

just sayin'

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

Oh for Christ's sake!

Democrats only TALK a good game. look at their crown jewel "ObamaCare"
People are worse off now than ever.
The RIGHT Way is the Conservative way where humans actually produce and achieve, in order to elevate the human condition.
The WRONG (Left) way is to trick people into thinking they can have it all free and easy....if they only give absolute power to the correct few Elites.

And GIVING people FREE shit is the NUMBER ONE WAY to GUARANTEE you have a society full of leeches and NON producers.

Yeah, go live somewhere where everyone gets free shit, doesn't produce or work......and I'll show you what they REALLY get in the end

 

[Flopper]

Wh

That is not what it's about. As it says in the article and in the TV programs, why aren't we doing more to prevent crime, solve the homeless problem, and deal with drug abuse. These are major issues with liberals. These are homegrown problems and are not the result of migration.

I've lived in Seattle for years and what I have seen is a gross misallocation of resources, 3.3 billion dollars for a tunnel in the downtown section and one sports stadium after another and years of procrastination on the decision to expand light rail which will cost the city hundreds millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with these projects but the city needs to make crime, drugs, and homelessness a priority.

Just for the sake of discussion... when you say 'make homelessness a priority'... what exactly do you mean by that? What would you expect them to do?

Crime is straight forward enough. Enforce the laws, and hire more police.

But when you say drugs... are you in favor of legalizing drugs, or pushing more people into prison for drug offenses?

When I say make the homelessness a priority, I mean we should follow the plan such as has been used in Salt Lake City (google it for details) which means provide housing for the chronic homeless defined as over 1 year of living on the streets with documented physical or mental disabilities and addiction to drugs or alcohol. This will cover most of the people that live on the streets of downtown Seattle as well as most other major cities. It requires both building domiciles and support after the people move in. Support is critical in helping these people get some form of work to pay their living expenses. The success rate is about 50% which is good for this type social service.

For non-chronic homelessness there is no real program because non-chronic homelessness is defined as being intermittent. A person loses their means of support and they are homeless a month or so, then they they get support through a job, family, or government support for few months, then they are on the streets again. Unfortunately, there is no prescribe program for this type of homelessness. We have to rely on other social welfare programs.

No, I am not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, PCP, Cocaine, Heroine, etc. Our currently recognized drug programs and at risk programs have a good record of success which about 40% to 60%.

But it all boils down to having the money. When you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

I was looking into the Salt Lake City deal, and discovered two articles that basically... shattered the entire concept.

The first from Huffpost....
Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again | HuffPost

The decline of homelessness, was more a factor of changing definitions of who was counted as homeless, and who was not.

In short, the dramatic decline in homelessness, was largely fiction. That doesn't mean they didn't move many people off the street and into subsidized apartments and government funded shelters. They did.

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

However, even there the solution was not a long term fix.

10 years ago when they came up with subsidizing apartments, many land owners faced with the economic down turn, and loss of tenants, were more than willing to accept low rents from government subsidized renters. Today that isn't the case.

The government has run out of money. They simply can't afford this anymore, and people are back on the street, and in larger numbers than before.

Additionally, the government shelters have ended up being home to the cartels which have set up shop for their favorite customers.

They are now just feeding money from the tax payers, through the homeless shelter occupants, right into the hands of the drug cartels. That is not a plan.

Even if it was a plan, the government simply doesn't have the money for more low cost apartments, or more shelters.

So unless you have more information, I'm labeling that idea a bust.

As I said, programs such as this have a success rate of about 50%, certainly not 91% as was claimed. Seattle, and other cities have been studying what Salt Lake City has done and how it can be improved. The simple fact is no one has come up with a really effective program for chronic homelessness. We know the things that don't solve the problem such as jail, transporting, more homeless shelters, and job programs.

Seattle is now requiring that 5% to 11% of all new housing units be low income housing. This is not likely to have much effect on the chronic homeless but it may reduce the numbers in the future because essentially all of the chronic homeless began as non-chronic.

I understand that homelessness in USA has increased dramatically in past few decades, and the asset/income inequality has also increased, along with the population.

Perhaps it is the government’s role to deal with this society problem issue, but what exactly were the “causes” of the increasing homeless problem, and how to mitigate it?

Step 1 is social science funding and research. Who are these homeless people and how did they get that way??

Can they be helped after becoming chronically homeless, or are they mentally sick, committed to crime due to their inability to get a job?
Are they raised in families with uneducated single mothers, or in poor neighborhoods with gangs as attractive options?
Would planned parenthood help, with significant investment by the local and national government?
Does anyone cold-blooded really care unless they are bothered by the problem?

It would be interesting to see such a study. However, I think it would difficult to get the data as the chronic homeless often either refuse or can't speak of their early life. I have read that chronic homelessness always begins with episodes of occasional homelessness. Not sure if that's true or not.

 

[denmark]

Wh

Just for the sake of discussion... when you say 'make homelessness a priority'... what exactly do you mean by that? What would you expect them to do?

Crime is straight forward enough. Enforce the laws, and hire more police.

But when you say drugs... are you in favor of legalizing drugs, or pushing more people into prison for drug offenses?

When I say make the homelessness a priority, I mean we should follow the plan such as has been used in Salt Lake City (google it for details) which means provide housing for the chronic homeless defined as over 1 year of living on the streets with documented physical or mental disabilities and addiction to drugs or alcohol. This will cover most of the people that live on the streets of downtown Seattle as well as most other major cities. It requires both building domiciles and support after the people move in. Support is critical in helping these people get some form of work to pay their living expenses. The success rate is about 50% which is good for this type social service.

For non-chronic homelessness there is no real program because non-chronic homelessness is defined as being intermittent. A person loses their means of support and they are homeless a month or so, then they they get support through a job, family, or government support for few months, then they are on the streets again. Unfortunately, there is no prescribe program for this type of homelessness. We have to rely on other social welfare programs.

No, I am not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, PCP, Cocaine, Heroine, etc. Our currently recognized drug programs and at risk programs have a good record of success which about 40% to 60%.

But it all boils down to having the money. When you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

I was looking into the Salt Lake City deal, and discovered two articles that basically... shattered the entire concept.

The first from Huffpost....
Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again | HuffPost

The decline of homelessness, was more a factor of changing definitions of who was counted as homeless, and who was not.

In short, the dramatic decline in homelessness, was largely fiction. That doesn't mean they didn't move many people off the street and into subsidized apartments and government funded shelters. They did.

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

However, even there the solution was not a long term fix.

10 years ago when they came up with subsidizing apartments, many land owners faced with the economic down turn, and loss of tenants, were more than willing to accept low rents from government subsidized renters. Today that isn't the case.

The government has run out of money. They simply can't afford this anymore, and people are back on the street, and in larger numbers than before.

Additionally, the government shelters have ended up being home to the cartels which have set up shop for their favorite customers.

They are now just feeding money from the tax payers, through the homeless shelter occupants, right into the hands of the drug cartels. That is not a plan.

Even if it was a plan, the government simply doesn't have the money for more low cost apartments, or more shelters.

So unless you have more information, I'm labeling that idea a bust.

As I said, programs such as this have a success rate of about 50%, certainly not 91% as was claimed. Seattle, and other cities have been studying what Salt Lake City has done and how it can be improved. The simple fact is no one has come up with a really effective program for chronic homelessness. We know the things that don't solve the problem such as jail, transporting, more homeless shelters, and job programs.

Seattle is now requiring that 5% to 11% of all new housing units be low income housing. This is not likely to have much effect on the chronic homeless but it may reduce the numbers in the future because essentially all of the chronic homeless began as non-chronic.

I understand that homelessness in USA has increased dramatically in past few decades, and the asset/income inequality has also increased, along with the population.

Perhaps it is the government’s role to deal with this society problem issue, but what exactly were the “causes” of the increasing homeless problem, and how to mitigate it?

Step 1 is social science funding and research. Who are these homeless people and how did they get that way??

Can they be helped after becoming chronically homeless, or are they mentally sick, committed to crime due to their inability to get a job?
Are they raised in families with uneducated single mothers, or in poor neighborhoods with gangs as attractive options?
Would planned parenthood help, with significant investment by the local and national government?
Does anyone cold-blooded really care unless they are bothered by the problem?

It would be interesting to see such a study. However, I think it would difficult to get the data as the chronic homeless often either refuse or can't speak of their early life. I have read that chronic homelessness always begins with episodes of occasional homelessness. Not sure if that's true or not.

I doubt a homeless person would refuse money to disclose their past, unless they can’t remember (mentally ill, hopeless) or have criminal backgrounds.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

Education K-12 is free to the student in this nation the last time I checked. If you live somewhere where fourth graders have to pay to attend class let me know.

Medicaid is open to low and no income people. The problem with these glib complaints is they just aren't so but to critics on the left if you aren't doing exactly as they wish you might as well be shooting the poor and lower income people in the head to hear them tell it.

Do republicans stress personal accountability more than democrats? Yes. Does that mean they leave people out in the cold to die of hunger? No.

Look at Seattle to see where leftist policy has gotten them. Tell me their way is working out so well.

 

[Flopper]

just sayin'

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

Oh for Christ's sake!

Democrats only TALK a good game. look at their crown jewel "ObamaCare"
People are worse off now than ever.
The RIGHT Way is the Conservative way where humans actually produce and achieve, in order to elevate the human condition.
The WRONG (Left) way is to trick people into thinking they can have it all free and easy....if they only give absolute power to the correct few Elites.

And GIVING people FREE shit is the NUMBER ONE WAY to GUARANTEE you have a society full of leeches and NON producers.

Yeah, go live somewhere where everyone gets free shit, doesn't produce or work......and I'll show you what they REALLY get in the end

View attachment 251826

I don't really think most Democrats want to see people that are capable of supporting themselves rely on government services. Likewise, I don't think most republicans what to see people who can't support themselves denied government services.

Democrats believe that people want to work given the opportunity and Republicans believe that people given the opportunity will avoid work. I'm a Democrat because I believe people want to work. They want to better their lives and that of their family. Many people simple don't have what it takes to do that today. Employers want people with education, communications skill, clean criminal records, free of drugs and alcohol abuse, mentally and physically fit, and the ability to work with others. Unfortunately, a large percent of our population strikes out on all counts and when they do get jobs, the pay is so low they can't support their family.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't really think most Democrats want to see people that are capable of supporting themselves rely on government services. Likewise, I don't think most republicans what to see people who can't support themselves denied government services.

I think this is true of the rank and file of the parties, but I do think the Democratic Party leadership have a Tammany Hall strategy and need more dependent people and thus support things that perpetuate poverty while the GOP leadership is Corporate Crony Class and they want to provide businesses with cheap desperate and compliant labor. John Boener was typical of them when he said 'If you are digging ditches, maybe that is all you are good for is digging ditches.'

Democrats believe that people want to work given the opportunity and Republicans believe that people given the opportunity will avoid work. I'm a Democrat because I believe people want to work. They want to better their lives and that of their family. Many people simple don't have what it takes to do that today.

Most healthy people who are not criminals want to work as it is good for the soul, one's self image to provide for oneself.

I am an independent because I do not think the government will empower the people nor do I think people are inherently evil and/or lazy.

Employers want people with education, communications skill, clean criminal records, free of drugs and alcohol abuse, mentally and physically fit, and the ability to work with others. Unfortunately, a large percent of our population strikes out on all counts and when they do get jobs, the pay is so low they can't support their family.

With modern technology employers dont particularly care if you have any skills when it comes to low skill jobs.

I dread our initial years of reacting to cheap android labor and the unrest that will come. The current leadership elite is incapable of even grasping the problem, much less forging new solutions to unforseen problems.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

just sayin'

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

Oh for Christ's sake!

Democrats only TALK a good game. look at their crown jewel "ObamaCare"
People are worse off now than ever.
The RIGHT Way is the Conservative way where humans actually produce and achieve, in order to elevate the human condition.
The WRONG (Left) way is to trick people into thinking they can have it all free and easy....if they only give absolute power to the correct few Elites.

And GIVING people FREE shit is the NUMBER ONE WAY to GUARANTEE you have a society full of leeches and NON producers.

Yeah, go live somewhere where everyone gets free shit, doesn't produce or work......and I'll show you what they REALLY get in the end

View attachment 251826

I don't really think most Democrats want to see people that are capable of supporting themselves rely on government services. Likewise, I don't think most republicans what to see people who can't support themselves denied government services.

Democrats believe that people want to work given the opportunity and Republicans believe that people given the opportunity will avoid work. I'm a Democrat because I believe people want to work. They want to better their lives and that of their family. Many people simple don't have what it takes to do that today. Employers want people with education, communications skill, clean criminal records, free of drugs and alcohol abuse, mentally and physically fit, and the ability to work with others. Unfortunately, a large percent of our population strikes out on all counts and when they do get jobs, the pay is so low they can't support their family.

I think this bears repeating.

 

[tyroneweaver]

just sayin'

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

OUr plan covered 80 pct of the country and people were happy with it.
it was called "pre obama."

 

[Flopper]

Of course the poor vote for democrats because republicans don't give them much choice. Why would the poor vote for people that believe healthcare, education, and the most basic necessities of life are for those that can afford it. Republican plans for the poor is survival of fittest.

Education K-12 is free to the student in this nation the last time I checked. If you live somewhere where fourth graders have to pay to attend class let me know.

Medicaid is open to low and no income people. The problem with these glib complaints is they just aren't so but to critics on the left if you aren't doing exactly as they wish you might as well be shooting the poor and lower income people in the head to hear them tell it.

Do republicans stress personal accountability more than democrats? Yes. Does that mean they leave people out in the cold to die of hunger? No.

Look at Seattle to see where leftist policy has gotten them. Tell me their way is working out so well.

#1 Best Cities in America for Tech Jobs
#1 In the US for best high schools
#2 Most healthiest city
#10 in Best Places to live in America
#30 as Best Place to retire
#5 in Best Healthcare
#5 Best City for Dinning
#11 Least Stressful City
#8 Safest Cities for families and children
#10 Most Secure City to Live In
Consistently in the top 5 for most literate cities

 

[JimBowie1958]

#1 Best Cities in America for Tech Jobs
#1 In the US for best high schools
#2 Most healthiest city
#10 in Best Places to live in America
#30 as Best Place to retire
#5 in Best Healthcare
#5 Best City for Dinning
#11 Least Stressful City
#8 Safest Cities for families and children
#10 Most Secure City to Live In
Consistently in the top 5 for most literate cities

As evaluated by gay writers who like living where the action is.

lol

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

#1 Best Cities in America for Tech Jobs
#1 In the US for best high schools
#2 Most healthiest city
#10 in Best Places to live in America
#30 as Best Place to retire
#5 in Best Healthcare
#5 Best City for Dinning
#11 Least Stressful City
#8 Safest Cities for families and children
#10 Most Secure City to Live In
Consistently in the top 5 for most literate cities

Long long ago,....Seattle was awesome.....today?
You couldn't PAY the majority of Americans to live there. It's a "special" place for "special" people.....in a sordid, sad way.

 

[Flopper]

#1 Best Cities in America for Tech Jobs
#1 In the US for best high schools
#2 Most healthiest city
#10 in Best Places to live in America
#30 as Best Place to retire
#5 in Best Healthcare
#5 Best City for Dinning
#11 Least Stressful City
#8 Safest Cities for families and children
#10 Most Secure City to Live In
Consistently in the top 5 for most literate cities

Long long ago,....Seattle was awesome.....today?
You couldn't PAY the majority of Americans to live there. It's a "special" place for "special" people.....in a sordid, sad way.

Considering the number moving here everyday, I wish you were right. All the small towns around Seattle are becoming bedroom communities with street after street filled with apartment complexes.

 

[Flopper]

Wh
When I say make the homelessness a priority, I mean we should follow the plan such as has been used in Salt Lake City (google it for details) which means provide housing for the chronic homeless defined as over 1 year of living on the streets with documented physical or mental disabilities and addiction to drugs or alcohol. This will cover most of the people that live on the streets of downtown Seattle as well as most other major cities. It requires both building domiciles and support after the people move in. Support is critical in helping these people get some form of work to pay their living expenses. The success rate is about 50% which is good for this type social service.

For non-chronic homelessness there is no real program because non-chronic homelessness is defined as being intermittent. A person loses their means of support and they are homeless a month or so, then they they get support through a job, family, or government support for few months, then they are on the streets again. Unfortunately, there is no prescribe program for this type of homelessness. We have to rely on other social welfare programs.

No, I am not in favor of legalizing hard drugs, PCP, Cocaine, Heroine, etc. Our currently recognized drug programs and at risk programs have a good record of success which about 40% to 60%.

But it all boils down to having the money. When you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

I was looking into the Salt Lake City deal, and discovered two articles that basically... shattered the entire concept.

The first from Huffpost....
Think Utah Solved Homelessness? Think Again | HuffPost

The decline of homelessness, was more a factor of changing definitions of who was counted as homeless, and who was not.

In short, the dramatic decline in homelessness, was largely fiction. That doesn't mean they didn't move many people off the street and into subsidized apartments and government funded shelters. They did.

Once a national model, Utah struggles with homelessness

However, even there the solution was not a long term fix.

10 years ago when they came up with subsidizing apartments, many land owners faced with the economic down turn, and loss of tenants, were more than willing to accept low rents from government subsidized renters. Today that isn't the case.

The government has run out of money. They simply can't afford this anymore, and people are back on the street, and in larger numbers than before.

Additionally, the government shelters have ended up being home to the cartels which have set up shop for their favorite customers.

They are now just feeding money from the tax payers, through the homeless shelter occupants, right into the hands of the drug cartels. That is not a plan.

Even if it was a plan, the government simply doesn't have the money for more low cost apartments, or more shelters.

So unless you have more information, I'm labeling that idea a bust.

As I said, programs such as this have a success rate of about 50%, certainly not 91% as was claimed. Seattle, and other cities have been studying what Salt Lake City has done and how it can be improved. The simple fact is no one has come up with a really effective program for chronic homelessness. We know the things that don't solve the problem such as jail, transporting, more homeless shelters, and job programs.

Seattle is now requiring that 5% to 11% of all new housing units be low income housing. This is not likely to have much effect on the chronic homeless but it may reduce the numbers in the future because essentially all of the chronic homeless began as non-chronic.

I understand that homelessness in USA has increased dramatically in past few decades, and the asset/income inequality has also increased, along with the population.

Perhaps it is the government’s role to deal with this society problem issue, but what exactly were the “causes” of the increasing homeless problem, and how to mitigate it?

Step 1 is social science funding and research. Who are these homeless people and how did they get that way??

Can they be helped after becoming chronically homeless, or are they mentally sick, committed to crime due to their inability to get a job?
Are they raised in families with uneducated single mothers, or in poor neighborhoods with gangs as attractive options?
Would planned parenthood help, with significant investment by the local and national government?
Does anyone cold-blooded really care unless they are bothered by the problem?

It would be interesting to see such a study. However, I think it would difficult to get the data as the chronic homeless often either refuse or can't speak of their early life. I have read that chronic homelessness always begins with episodes of occasional homelessness. Not sure if that's true or not.

I doubt a homeless person would refuse money to disclose their past, unless they can’t remember (mentally ill, hopeless) or have criminal backgrounds.

For those that are able to talk to you, they will be more than happy to talk for money. The problem of course is can you believe what they are telling you. When I worked in the food bank, many of these people would tell you the most fantastic stories and a week later they had totally forgotten what they said.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Considering the number moving here everyday, I wish you were right. All the small towns around Seattle are becoming bedroom communities with street after street filled with apartment complexes.

You've been reading those same "Hillary in a landslide" polls.

Too bad ALL those who flocked to SheepCattle are homeless and drug addicts.....but hey! Good luck

See, here's the thing.....unfortunately....in this day and age of politicized Media, all you have to do to get the story you want to hear is read the source that provides it. And since the left has a rock solid Lock on the Media, it's SUPER easy to get that story for your beliefs.

 

[Deno]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Tough reality is not part of a Liberal agenda, how we sink deeper into denial...

They’re destined too fail with this mentality, and they want to tell you President Trump has no idea what he’s doing with the wall at our Southern Border? This is a case in point that clear demonstrates why you should enforce the laws...

Who is arguing against enforcing the laws? You guys just make this shit up. Or just buy the latest Hannity episode. Vote reps in that will change immigration laws and amend The Constitution.

Talk about making Shit up....

That's all you Tards and your lying media does....