Maybe this will help dispel the (unearned) heroic mythos surrounding Silicon Valley.
I'm pretty heavily conflicted about homelessness. On the one hand, I've had them chase me down with weapons. I see their sewage being dumped into the river. I see their garbage piles. I see their drugs. On the other hand, they're people and the conditions we tend to put on giving them help are patronizing half-measures that are almost universally tied to someone's religion or ethos. I think homelessness wouldn't be nearly so bad if we didn't make it so bad to be homeless. Or something like that. Dunno. Maybe if we had better public access to mental health and addiction resources there would be fewer homeless... and maybe they wouldn't have such a footprint where they aren't invited. But until then, I expect to see more measures like this, and to feel conflicted about them.
The zeitgeist is to find a way to get them housed in actual housing, not a shelter, then figure out the other stuff. It's true that many homeless people have substance abuse or mental health problems that would leave them unable to keep themselves stable on their own, but it turns out to be easier to deal with those when they have a safe place to stay and a little dignity than along with the stresses of living on the street or in a shelter. There's a wikipedia article
I'm not unfamiliar. Remember - I dated amongst the social work pool. The problem is that in most places where homelessness is a problem, housing prices are a problem. Imagine what a ballot initiative that said "no tents, give them housing" would look like in San Fran (at least, if it didn't involve giving them housing in, say, utah). I'm left with the observation that we've all collectively decided the solution isn't worth it, so we patch things up with shitty half measures.
There are multiple car break ins every night in our neighborhood. Peoples mail, anything in their back yards, any garage left unlocked gets liberated. You can't get a package shipped to your house. Garbage is strewn across any natural area, as is tents and feces. I don't know why it's gotten so bad in the last year but holy shit it's snowballing. The city changes their plan to address homelessness every six months. I know that when you have nothing you'll take anything that helps you survive. I know that except for a few good breaks and the fact that I've dodged a few bad ones it could be me. The homeless are my enemy. They are preying on me every day. They've broken into our car, I'm sure they've stood in my back yard, tried by patio door on a day I wasn't home. They've stolen my packages. It's becoming an increasingly stressful part of city living and it doesn't make me a more compassionate person. There are times when just seeing them fills me with anger. It's hard, knowing they want to fuck me out of whatever they can and at the same time to remember that they are desperate people just trying to get a tiny bit of comfort out their miserable unfortunate existence.
I had all my shit stolen by ave rats when I was in college. I relate. And I don't think it could be you. One thing I've learned is that the homeless are not monolithic. There's this one guy with a bike with about eighty dozen mirrors on it. He's well-groomed. He's friendly. He's never looking for a hand-out. I always say hi. Then there's this other posse that has a couple dozen bikes and maybe a dozen shopping carts chained up. There's the dude who sweeps the river (really) and there's the lady who's always squatting to take a dump downstream about a mile who never gives the first fuck who sees. I think that the unseen homeless are the ones that aren't stealing your shit because they recognize that the costs-benefits analysis on it doesn't pencil out. They're the ones that aren't flaunting their condition, that see the homeless as "them" instead of "us" and are every bit Steinbeck's temporarily-embarrassed millionaires. And I don't see you stealing someone's packages just to see if they're something you can use. _wage? _wage totally woulda stolen packages. We all deal with adversity differently. I think part of our frustration is we mostly encounter those who deal with adversity by disregarding the social compact. Those who abide by it are invisible to us.
I don't know. If you work as many hours as you can get and still end up on the street the social compact has disregarded you. If I were homeless with a kid I don't know what I wouldn't do to get by. wage asked me for a job at my shop one time. I'm glad I wasn't in a position to hire anyone at that time. Don't ask anyone for a job if you've talked about the shit you've stolen from your work.
While I admit that I do not think homelessness should be considered a crime in and of itself, braking and entering, theft, trespassing, littering, and who knows what else are all crimes. Do the police do much to address these acts? Have you guys considered forming a neighborhood watch? I ask, because I know two different people where drugs and theft were HUGE problems in their neighborhoods, and while it took a few years for both, working closely with the police and city council eventually made a major difference. If you want, I could ask one of them if they would mind getting in contact with you, see if they could share some ideas and tips.
Our police bureau is in crisis. It's way undermanned and is going to stay that way for years. We have a neighborhood watch program and apps like nextdoor let the community communicate about issues pretty freely. http://koin.com/2015/12/15/city-struggles-to-take-action-as-homeless-camps-multiply/ http://koin.com/2015/12/03/rules-hard-to-enforce-at-growing-n-greeley-camp/ These permanent camps are just a tiny part of what's going on. There are ten times as many people camping here and there. You can neighborhood watch as much as you like, without a police force that is able to work on issues instead of running from call to call, housing for people to live in you are pretty much fighting the ocean.
It's fine, it's just a stress of city living. Make sure your doors are locked, don't leave your garage open, even for a minute. The wife can't jog on the scenic trail anymore. I'm sure that 5% of the homeless commit 95% of the crime. There are lots of great things to living here as well. We definitely need to do something about homelessness.
I think its shitty that you and your wife can no longer feel safe where you live. The question is what would you do? Assume you could pass any local legislation you wanted but had no control over state and national policy or resources. How would you go about making your neighborhood safe.We definitely need to do something about homelessness.
We have to cough up the money and put as many homeless people in housing as possible. Shelters aren't a long term fix. We need more mental health and drug abuse counseling. People need some kind of viable minimum income. On the streets people receive inadequate medical care whic cost us more in the long term. They resort to petty crime to survive, burdening our police departments, filling our jails, alienating them from civil society and creating police records which make them unable to find work down the road. Instead our mayor hoots that he's delivered water and sanitation services to the homeless camps, which does nothing but entrench the problem. People need jobs that pay enough to make the rent and they need health care that doesn't bankrupt them. We need to get rid of predatory financial scams that prey on the poorest members of society. Who knows what will happen, my guess is that it will continue to get worse seeing how disorganized and inept local government is.
And here's the bigger housing problem: You can't put them all in the same housing. Otherwise you have just created a ghetto. The "homeless housing" simply needs to be low-rent (subsidized) flats on the ground floor of that regular old apartment building. The homeless need to be integrated into the community rather than stored away elsewhere. It has proven to be the only viable solution. The whole idea of consolidating the homeless in one area to provide group services is just wrong. The result is a bunch of directionless people with nothing to do all day, and many of them have drug/mental issues, which are exacerbated by being closely housed with other people with similar problems. Once the homeless are integrated into regular housing, they are out of the cycle, and out of the perpetually homeless community, and can receive the services they need to live on their own and build a real life. Failing that, there needs to be a catch-basin for those who simply cannot care for themselves. This used to be the mental healthcare system, until Reagan de-funded the whole thing in the 1980's, and simply pushed the indigent out onto the street without their meds. And that is the new "normal" that Reagan created for us: A world in which you walk by a crazy person, or a person who is clearly in distress, because the only recourse is the police. Actually addressing homelessness in a meaningful way requires a restructuring of societal base expectations that have been built over the last two generations. And that just isn't going to happen on an America-wide scale.
This is, in fact, the way Seattle does it. You get tax incentives and grants for providing subsidized housing units as a part of your building complex.The "homeless housing" simply needs to be low-rent (subsidized) flats on the ground floor of that regular old apartment building. The homeless need to be integrated into the community rather than stored away elsewhere.
IMO that doesn't provide me as a tax payer very good bang for the buck. Housing someone in Seattle proper probably costs 2-3x as much as it would to house them somewhere else. Do you think its a good idea? It may be slightly better outcomes for the homeless person but significantly worse outcomes for the community.
Actually, the right solution is FareStart, which answers all of the problems around homelessness: lack of housing, lack of skills, lack of discipline, lack of connections, and lack of support. And, for those with insurmountable drug or mental issues, they have pipelines into programs that handle these people, too. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to have homeless programs in a city like Seattle. In fact, these exact programs work in other cities all around the world. The only difference is that those cities are backed up with federal support that takes care of the 10% that fall out the bottom of the system. Really, your knowledge of the reasons for homelessness, the barriers to becoming un-homeless, and the support systems in place for the homeless is absolutely laughable. You are willfully uninformed on the subject, and your pontifications bring no new thinking to these well-understood issues.
If the housing camp crops up after you buy your house, sell it for what it's worth and move. Deal with your problems yourself, don't expect the government to come to help you. I want you to think: What happens when everyone shares the attitude you just put forward? What happens when we can't open any homeless shelters because everyone gets angry and tries their best to constantly shut them down? We don't get more shelters, we don't fix the problem, poverty gets worse, the homeless get more desperate, and everyone loses. Yes, sell your house and move. Should we solve your problems without putting in an ounce of work? It's hard work to move, yeah. However, you've got a problem. You fix the problem. If you don't want to fix the problem, don't go complaining to everyone about how bad the problem is. You bought the house where housing was so messed up that the homeless are literally building camps by the sides of the road. If you wanted to, you could have probably been part of the political system that allowed or prevented it to go up in the first place. You might have been able to put more regulations on the number of homeless allowed in the area, or pushed for a corresponding increase in police forces to compensate. However, I'm guessing you weren't part of that either. just move!
Thats like saying you should sell your house every time someone shits on your lawn. Its just silly. Good things happen. Opening homeless shelters and soup kitchens that tailor to them does nothing to actually solve homelessness. It like giving addicts more drugs. Sure they feel better for a bit but the people around them suffer more and more addicts arrive to consume them.I want you to think: What happens when everyone shares the attitude you just put forward? What happens when we can't open any homeless shelters because everyone gets angry and tries their best to constantly shut them down? We don't get more shelters, we don't fix the problem, poverty gets worse, the homeless get more desperate, and everyone loses.
People who are homless are homeless because they are incapable of holding down a job or keeping a steady life. Drug addicts, mentally ill, and so on. They aren't the sort of people you can fix, you just have to provide for them so that they do not become the things that are causing all the crime and issues that cgod is talking about. Ultimately, if we wanted to solve homelessness than I can offer you a single, final, very easy, solution to your problem. If you aren't willing to move, if you aren't willing to solve the problem and help people, than there isn't much else you can do.Opening homeless shelters and soup kitchens that tailor to them does nothing to actually solve homelessness.
I want to start out by saying that I understand the frustration a lot of communities feel when it comes to the homeless, on both sides of the issue. I also want to state that there are a ton of questions and issues surrounding the homeless and I don’t think I have a single answer to any of them. It’s a big problem and generally speaking, I’m a very small minded kind of guy. So please keep that in mind as you read this. In practicality, I understand your frustration with homeless camps. That said, in spirit, I agree with johnnyFive’s sentiment that this is unjust. For the record, I was the one that tagged this #humanrights. In fact, I tag every article I see about the homeless that, because I believe that the struggles that they face are very much a human rights issue. It is my opinion that every person has the right to physical and emotional security, food in their bellies, and a safe place to lay their head down to sleep. I don’t think any honest and good hearted person would argue otherwise. The homeless in general and homeless camps and tent cities in particular create some real concerns. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. However, I am of the opinion that criminalizing homelessness and aspects of homelessness will not fix the issue. Sooner or later, they’re going to run out of places to go. Worse yet, it’s going to make their already difficult lives that much harder. The homeless are at high risk of being victims of crimes ranging from theft to rape to murder and they’re at higher risk of catching infectious diseases and normal health problems getting worse because they don’t have access to adequate health care. All of that is awful and once again, I don’t think any good person would argue otherwise. I honestly think tackling some of the causes of homelessness and creating legislation focused around that would do much more good, if not in the short term, in the long term. Mental health and substance abuse is very common among the homeless (in fact, if I remember right, the homeless population took a jump after all of the mental health hospitals closed down in the ‘80s). I think looking at embracing social programs around affordable mental health care and realistic drug treatments would help. What they’d look like? I don’t know. Affordable housing is another core cause of homelessness. Around the same time that all of the mental health institutions were shutting down, SRO’s started disappearing. I’ve been told that this trend was a huge contributing factor to the growth in the homeless population. How significant of a factor, I don’t know, because I’m not an expert on homelessness. The fact is though, housing of all kinds gets more and more expensive every single year and if you don’t have the money, you’re gonna get evicted or the bank is gonna take your house. The people at the bottom of the social ladder, who lack safety nets, tend to get hit first and hit hardest and they often have nowhere to go. Homeless people, due to mental health issues, lack of decent education, past criminal records, and so on and so forth often can’t find and/or keep quality, stable work. I could go on and on and on, but I don’t know what else to say. All of these issues are just so intertwined it’s like the majority of these people are in the middle of a massive knot and while people can point to various strings and say “Yup, that’s a problem” very few people are pointing at the knot and saying “Let’s figure out a way to untangle this.” Criminalizing homelessness? It’s another string on a knot that has way too many already. Like I said, I don’t know how to address this problem. I do think though, that maybe adding another string doesn’t help.
I can't disagree with anything you've said. Maybe read my comment. I'm fucking powerless to effect the situation. My local government spends a ton of money in ways that make no long term difference to the situation. No solution that's been tried seems to have either a significant impact on the problem or is perused long enough to have an impact. The ultimate answer seems to be getting people into housing but the city can't seem to figure out how to get enough housing built to keep people in homes let alone get the people without homes into them. It's very frustrating.
I know. For what it's worth, I'm genuinely sorry you're going through this. You strike me as a cool guy and I admire the heck out of you for running your own business. I really hope that your situation turns around, for you and the people in your life.It's very frustrating.
Seattle has much the same problems. The bleeding heart liberals are wasting millions of dollars tying to house homeless in a city with some of the most expensive real estate in the country. I see all these silly eviction notices every time I go to green-lake where someone pitches a tent up in a public park and then the city feels like they need to give the person 48 hrs notice to stop squatting in the fucking park. There are large homeless encampments in both the university district and Ballard that are both super expensive places to live Dollar for dollar it would be much cheaper to redirect all the money that the city is currently using to house the homeless and move them to a location outside of town and provide housing there. Its crazy that its even legal in SF to pitch up a tent on public streets and a proposition like this is necessary. IMO if you pitch up a tent on the street and you arent in it when the police show up it should be treated like garbage and thrown away so really this proposed legislation doesn't go far enough. Where the legislation really misses the mark is that it doesn't address the direct cause of the problem. Root cause are the conditions that cause homelessness, those are very difficult to solve personally I dont think those are worth tackling at an level below state and national. A city should instead the addressing "direct cause" as in the conditions that cause homeless to move to the city and stay to cause problems. To do that one needs to make smart legislation that targets services that caters to the homeless and moves them out of areas that are close to residential and commercial hubs. The goal of legislation should be to force soup kitchens, social services offices and shelters out of residential communities and commercial hubs and to quickly address any tents/housing that gets put up. The police dont really have the resources to move the homeless and keep them from loitering but keeping them from putting up tents on public land should be a priority (especially in highly visible areas) as the longer they stay the more damage/garbage they produce. Moving them out of residential areas will reduce the policing burden and help reduce crime.
I mentioned this in another comment reply, but moving the homeless always makes the problem worse. All you have done is created a ghetto where they homeless are now reliant on the handouts, rather than being able to make use of the services provided by the city (transit, etc.) The only solution that works all the time is integrating the homeless into society. Creating a "step-ladder" that helps people get a roof over their head, and then leverage the city's infrastructure (transit, healthcare, sewer, water, power, etc.) to build themselves a sustainable life. The ones who fall out of this system are the mental health/addiction sufferers, who then need to be taken care of by the state in some sort of institution. (Which can definitely be out in the countryside, or whatever, because the state has committed to supporting this person for the rest of their life.) Simply taking the homeless and moving them out to the countryside will ensure they remain a drag on society, since you have removed them from society, and all of the things that society provides. Ghetto-ization is not the answer. It's way more complex than that.
At a national level it may be possible to address the more complex problems related to homelessness but at a local level it is not. Even if you could house all the homeless in the city of Seattle there is essentially an infinite supply of homeless people in the rest of the country that would relocate . Also it makes no sense to house try to integrate people into society in an area where they could never afford to live. Seattle an SF housing would basically eat the entirety of a minimum wage salary. The same way we dont try to integrate convicts in Malibu or Beverly hills we shoulden't be trying to integrate homeless in some of the most expensive real estate locations in the country. It makes way more sense to move them to Kent, Yakima, or other parts of the the country where its way cheaper to reintegrate them.Simply taking the homeless and moving them out to the countryside will ensure they remain a drag on society, since you have removed them from society, and all of the things that society provides.
Your understanding of the homeless is infantile and your projection of motive on indigent, disinterested people is appalling. Seattle is a substantially harsher place to be homeless than Los Angeles or San Francisco. I say that having known professionals who work with the homeless in all three communities. The homeless are also not a transient population; they aren't a roving band of locusts surfing the internet to find the best incentives. They generally live where they failed out. Seattle has an extensive network of options available to the homeless that, wait for it, includes subsidized housing. I HAVE PERSONALLY DESIGNED THESE UNITS in and around Greenlake and the Space Needle. That they don't advertise should not surprise you, considering your shamefully reactionary attitude. "Deport them to Yakima." Fuck off.
Tell me again why it makes sense to house the homeless in neighborhoods there an average working American cannot afford to live? Young professionals that make 100k+ a year cannot afford to live in green-lake but its a great place for a recovering addict thats down on his or her luck. That makes no sense. The rest of us have to move when we cant afford to live somewhere because we got priced out, why do the homeless have the right to stay? EDIT: P.S The right to peacefully assemble does not extend into a right to squat on public property and camp out. If it did occupy would still be camped out in downtown Seattle.
Because the right to freely and peaceably assemble has fuckall to do with the right to own property in Greenlake? There's nothing stopping you from throwing a sleeping bag under an overpass other than you have better options. They don't. But right. DEPORT THE POOR. This is me ignoring you.
Practically speaking, the reason people wind up in Seattle is because it's the end of the road, as far as public travel options are concerned. (Trains, buses, etc.) That's why we have homeless from elsewhere. Not because we have some sort of homeless utopia that draws them from elsewhere. And yes, trying to integrate people into the society is valuable no matter the financial makeup of the city. Every city is going to have similar problems, regardless of size, and needs these solutions in place. Partially to mitigate the problem at home, and partially to deal with the migrant homeless who come for the opportunities presented by a better program.