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.