Seattle Is Dying (and it's not alone)

[twister244]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Man, I was just writing a really long response to your post and managed to lose the whole thing. I probably don't have it in me to try to re-write it. Briefly though, I got a Masters in Social Work at USC in the mid 1980s and worked with the chronic mentally ill outpatient population in LA and in the DC metro for the next 8 years. My information is dated, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the complexities involved. Up until around 1985, due to generous federal grants, most states (and especially California) had significant outpatient mental health services and a wide variety of housing options available to treat the chronic mentally ill population following court ordered de-institutionalization. These programs started in the early 1970s when the hospitals started to empty out. The belief was that a medication compliant mentally ill population could get the services it needed in the community. Almost immediately there was a very visible increase in the number of homeless people on the streets of major US cities. Why? The simplest answer is that these people were not medication compliant and drifted away from the system in ever increasing numbers. After the federal government cut funding in the Reagan years, the problem became much worse. Local outpatient services deteriorated or disappeared. Patients who were not medication compliant or otherwise unable/unwilling to abide by the rules of independent or semi-independent living facilities pretty much were left to fend for themselves.

I did my Masters writing project on one such person, a woman named Ruby who lived in the bus shelter on West Third St. and South Kingsley in front of the 7/11 store on the near westside of LA. Ruby was determined to stay on the streets, and she only left her shelter every now and then for what she described as a "rest cure". She would check herself into or be taken by police to emergency psych services at County General Hospital where she would get 10 days or so in-patient care. This went on for years. She was still living in her bus shelter talking all night to the people in the advertising posters on the shelter wall when I moved to DC in the late 80s. I went to work in DC (suburban Maryland) in an outpatient clinical facility. Funding was cut with each new budget. More and more of our clients began to have dicey housing arrangements, and keep in mind our clients were at least somewhat compliant with medication and treatment. Many disappeared into a life of self medication and crack cocaine addiction. Meanwhile, the visible homeless population continued to grow and grow. The population I am describing is just one component of the homeless population, but it is a major component. I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that mandatory medication compliance, regular clinical care, and supervised housing of some sort are the only realistic solutions for this group of homeless. All that costs a ton of money, so I don't see it happening. If you can find a hotel or motel that is willing to provide housing for these folks in the interim, more power to you and to the housing providers as well.

The drug addicted homeless population is probably divided between the psychotic and near psychotic self medication group and another large cohort of mostly younger (but not all young by any means) hard core drug users. Some of them have been addicted since their teen years. Others came back from the military in pretty bad shape and took to life on the streets. Employment is usually not part of their repertpoire. Scoring the next hit of crack or a syringe full of heroin, coke, or meth is their priority. This crowd loves a good motel room, but they won't put it to good use. My knowledge of this population stems from my participation in a 12 step program (I am not allowed to say which one but it involves drugs) where I have met dozens of young and not so young people who are trying to get clean and, in many instances, get off the streets. If they are genuinely motivated, there is a reasonable chance that they might succeed, but timing is everything with this endeavor because the rate of failure is very, very high. How does it usually end? Well, in the rooms where I hang out once or twice a week, the word is that it ends in "jails, institutions, and death". I believe that to be true for the most part. Community or government funding for drug treatment programs and half way or 3/4 housing would be very useful, but most of the problem will remain unless drugs disappear or law enforcement really comes down hard on this group with sentencing options that include mandatory treatment and ongoing drug testing.

There are some good programs in Austin for homeless individuals and families who are willing and able to work with they systems that are in place. Foundation Communities is one program that has provided housing for various different types of homeless individuals and families, including large numbers of medication/treatment compliant mentally ill. Still, what Foundation and other programs can offer is a drop in the bucket. The overall problem of homelessness is so multi-faceted. Affordable housing is certainly an issue, but it is NOT the root cause of homelessness in Austin or in most cities. The causes are much more systemic and complex. There is no one solution.

My fear here in Austin is that that we are quickly going to become known nationwide as a all-weather mecca for homeless living. If you can stand the summer heat, Austin is certainly more congenial in the wintertime than places like Portland, Seattle, or Olympia. If we do end up with several thousand homeless living all over town in tents and encampments, there is likely to be some very unpleasant political fallout. Austin is liberal, but it's not that liberal.

You nailed in here. Everyone wants to talk about how sad it is to see this unfolding, but at the end of the day, the choices are a set of "least bad" avenues to deal with the situation. One involves ponying up more money. The other means forcing some of these folks into help. Unfortunately, the ACLU will smash the latter to pieces because of their insane view that it's somehow better to allow these people to roam the streets F'up in the head, assuming they will make a conscious decision to check themselves into the right treatment. Letting these folks camp wherever they want isn't the solution...... it's a lazy cop-out of actually addressing the issues with some hard choices. It's interesting to hear Austin legalizing this. Here in Denver, we made it illegal a couple years ago to camp out in public areas. Police started doing sweeps, and of course, que the outcry from "advocates". During our mayoral election earlier this year, we put it up for a vote to reverse this policy, and the city basically said Fuck. No. to allowing homeless to camp out wherever they want.

[Sun Belt]

I haven't had a chance to watch the full video, just about half of it.

With that said:
1] Seattle is not dying, quite the contrary, it is one of the most successful, fastest growing metros in America. It is so successful, it has Sun Belt type growth that every single other city in America would love to have.
2] The homeless situation and the tolerance of taboo behavior is shameful. This is directed from the political leaders of these cities and they deserve much of the blame.
3] #2 is not unique to Seattle, it's found all up and down the West Coast.
4] Tough love is the best thing for these people. Tolerance, free needles, 'urban camping', decriminalization of drugs are all enablers and create a larger problem in the future.

[Pedestrian]

Needles on wane in BART trains and stations, another sign of fentanyl’s rise
Rachel Swan
July 7, 2019 Updated: July 8, 2019 9:51 a.m.

The number of needles that once piled up in BART’s downtown San Francisco stations — detritus from a heroin and speed epidemic that’s choked city streets and seeped into the transit system — is suddenly on the decline.

It’s not necessarily cause for celebration, though, as one driving factor is an increase in the use of the deadly drug fentanyl, which addicts are more likely to smoke.

A year ago in July, custodial workers at BART picked up 4,197 needles from the Civic Center and Powell stations — 2,678 at Civic Center and 1,519 at Powell. The sharp objects were so prevalent that one woman reported getting pricked by a hypodermic needle wedged in a seat cushion.

By May of this year the numbers had fallen dramatically, to 585 needles from the two stations combined. Workers retrieved 419 at Civic Center and 166 at Powell.

The drop signifies a remarkable change for stations that only a year ago were lined with slumped-over drug users. BART’s staff and outreach teams cite various factors, including the closure of an infamous Civic Center hallway, ramped-up police patrols throughout the stations, and kiosks installed downtown and throughout United Nations Plaza near the BART stairwells.

But another explanation is that people are shifting from heroin to the synthetic painkiller fentanyl, according to officials.

“We caught someone smoking fentanyl on a train the other day,” said BART police Officer Keith Garcia, who is president of the transit system’s police union. He said the new drug of choice is “all around town,” so it’s become more visible in places like the stairway to United Nations Plaza, where a group of people was smoking a substance off strips of aluminum foil on a recent Tuesday evening . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...s-14076502.php

And this can be an issue for other riders:

Second-hand inhalation of crack vapours is known to be very dangerous, but rarely has the alarm been raised about exposure of anaesthesiologists to second-hand fentanyl. Fentanyl has been detected in the air within operating rooms, the highest concentrations being close to the patient’s mouth, where anaesthesiologists work for hours. Like passive smoking, second-hand opioid exposure can sensitise the brain, making abuse, dependence, and behavioural disorders more likely among anaesthesiologists and surgeons than other health professionals (and now, potentially, transit riders).

An increase in the abuse of fentanyl is therefore a growing public health problem, with the risk that within a few years it could evolve into a global epidemic , , , ,

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journ...06)69516-0.pdf

[floor23]

Growing up in Seattle, I find it kind of odd that only now people are complaining about the homelessness and drug abuse. This stuff has been going on in Seattle as long back as I can remember (early 90's). I can remember homeless encampments in SODO back in the 90's early 2000's.

The one big difference between Seattle now and the past is South Lake Union has been developed and a lot of homeless use to spend time there when it was mostly warehouses and industrial buildings. Now that its been turned into a residential/commercial district my guess is a lot of them been driven(pushed) to other neighborhoods.

I'm not saying its not a problem, but the politicians and critics are really late to the game when addressing this issue. Would have been nice if they addressed this 20 years ago.

To say Seattle is dying is an incredible exaggeration and nothing more than click bait. I'm guessing the person who made the video and wrote the narrative has lived in Seattle for at most like 3 years, or he/she is a suburbanite whose only experience in Seattle is around SODO (attending sports games) or downtown.

If people think Seattle is dying now, I wonder what they would have said about Seattle's Hooverville's during the late 1920's and 30's

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by floor23

the politicians and critics are really late to the game when addressing this issue. Would have been nice if they addressed this 20 years ago.

Which is precisely the main point of the video and the key point in the issue. It doesn't really matter when it started although my own memory goes back farther than yours and I can tell you the difference between the 1980s and now is stark, at least in SF.

This is a fixable problem but no politicians--not in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco or LA--seem to want to do what is necessary. Providing housing (unless it's free and without rules concerning substance abuse on the premises) won't do it because the problem for the chronically homeless isn't really lack of a home. It's lack of the ability to be wired into society enough to get and KEEP a home. If somebody is either psychotic or completely intoxicated for much of every day, as so many of these people are, they can't do anything for themselves except lie on the sidewalk or on transit and periodically rouse to do what they do to get the money for more drugs, buy them and go back to their spot on the sidewalk.

[Sun Belt]

RE: the pic -- Hoovervilles are quite different than Heroin addicted folks lining our streets today at a time of record low unemployment.

[Pedestrian]

So just now I’m sitting in another fast food place and noticed a skinny bleach blond woman rumaging in an over-sized purse. Then I notice she’s opening a small packet of aluminum foil, pulls out a butane lighter and a straw and is about to apply flame to whatever’s in the foil—about 4 feet from me. I screamed at her “don’t do that in here” loud enough to attract the attention of everyone in the place. She naturally cursed at me but picked up her things and left.

This is what “downtown” life has become thanks to our “progressive” overlords.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by pedestrian

so just now i’m sitting in another fast food place and noticed a skinny bleach blond woman rumaging in an over-sized purse. Then i notice she’s opening a small packet of aluminum foil, pulls out a butane lighter and a straw and is about to apply flame to whatever’s in the foil—about 4 feet from me. I screamed at her “don’t do that in here” loud enough to attract the attention of everyone in the place. She naturally cursed at me but picked up her things and left.

This is what “downtown” life has become thanks to our “progressive” overlords.

omg!!

[Sun Belt]

Imagine if everybody else did that? Peer pressure and tough love are powerful. Tolerance results in the opposite.

True story, gang.

[llamaorama]

Austlar, my question is whether or not individuals being institutionalized would only have their autonomy limited to the degree necessary to treat or manage their condition, or if the system would default to a more restrictive approach. How well does the law and agencies and organizations address this? The devil is in the details. This is why it is a political issue, because politicians are the ones who create said details.

Does the system want to care for people, or does it really just exist to keep those people from bothering the rest of society? I feel like a certain political party would care most about the latter goal.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

We're even seeing camps setting up under freeways in affluent areas of Austin, notably the Arboretum area. The trash and debris are building up. I feel that the mayor and city council should go out daily and clean up all the garbage all over Austin from these camps. Even the intersections are getting trashed out. It's becoming a political issue, and although I have generally supported the mayor and council, I will vote against every one of them next time.

Yesterday, one of the transients was blocking traffic on Capital of Texas by the Arboretum, and when motorists started yelling at him, he yelled even more and stood right in front of the vehicles, causing quite a jam.

Austin may seem like an easy going place, but I don't know anyone who is happy about these camps and all the garbage strewn about.

Portland just decided recently to take over cleaning of the freeway interchanges in town, since the state only clears them out like every couple months. Of course this is just another way of pushing the problem around, but I think they at least send out people who try to connect the homeless with services, unlike the state. Also the mayor is increasing trash pick up services downtown... The less garbage left in the bins, the less thrown into the street by people rifling through. Nothing major, but a couple moves that will at least clean things up.

[Pedestrian]

@llamaorama:

^^ In San Francisco I long ago concluded it wants to do neither. The place where I was today is in a building owned by rhe University of CA Hastings law school. Next door is Philz selling $5 cups of coffee to techies (and a lot of cops). But at the other end of the block is one of the city’s most notorious drug bazaars.

If the city political leaders wanted to prevent the bothering of the rest of society, they’d have sent the police to clean up the area long ago. On the other hand, I don’t call it caring for people to allow them to live outside in this cold, foggy, rainy (in winter) climate spending their lives in a drugged stupor or just raving at phantoms.

We spend lots of money building “homes” for them at $750,000 a pop (building costs) and some on shelters (the Mayor’s latest idea is to greatly increase shelter spaces) but many aren’t interested in the shelters because they won’t let them use drugs or alcohol there and sometimes take their animals (the local Animal Control happily lets the homeless adopt animals that will prevent them from accessing some shelters).

So they fill the street, alleys and transit with their tents and garbage and feces and needles, and nobody is willing to tell them that is unacceptable.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Austlar, my question is whether or not individuals being institutionalized would only have their autonomy limited to the degree necessary to treat or manage their condition, or if the system would default to a more restrictive approach. How well does the law and agencies and organizations address this? The devil is in the details. This is why it is a political issue, because politicians are the ones who create said details.

Does the system want to care for people, or does it really just exist to keep those people from bothering the rest of society? I feel like a certain political party would care most about the latter goal.

It would be easier to try to come up with an answer to your question, if I knew exactly which "people" you are referencing. The homeless population has diverse needs. There is no one size fits all solution. My short answer, though, is that with the chronic mentally ill population there needs to be a variety of options ranging from complete institutionalization to independent living. The federal courts decided many years ago that the concept of "least restrictive environment" tailored to individual needs should be the standard applied. Federal and state law makers seem to have happily applied the first part of that standard over the years, resulting in almost complete neglect for the indigent and homeless mentally ill and intellectually challenged population.

There is no real system that "cares" for homeless people, just a patchwork of private mostly charitable initiatives with, at best, band-aid solutions. Neither political party has made a serious attempt to address these issues in the past 40 years. Real solutions are too expensive. The homeless don't vote, and in reality there is not a large constituency that seems to care that much about them. There is always a lot of talk about helping the homeless in certain circles, but public policy never emerges in a well funded and consistent manner to address the truly COMPLEX problem of dealing with homelessness.

Yes, there is probably an ideological divide that exists in terms of opinions about the root causes of homelessness or about how to deal with the various problems, but at this point in time there does not seem to be the political will to get anything done. We are likely to see more of the same going forward. Public outrage over the visible excesses of an uncontrolled homeless population degrading public spaces is currently the most potent ingredient in the political mix, and I am afraid that for many people it will serve as an excuse to take a turn to the right politically. You can see that here in this thread, and I guess I am headed in that direction, at least with regards to this issue.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by austlar1

There is no real system that "cares" for homeless people, just a patchwork of private mostly charitable initiatives with, at best, band-aid solutions. Neither political party has made a serious attempt to address these issues in the past 40 years. Real solutions are too expensive. The homeless don't vote, and in reality there is not a large constituency that seems to care that much about them. There is always a lot of talk about helping the homeless in certain circles, but public policy never emerges in a well funded and consistent manner to address the truly COMPLEX problem of dealing with homelessness.

Yes, there is probably an ideological divide that exists in terms of opinions about the root causes of homelessness or about how to deal with the various problems, but at this point in time there does not seem to be the political will to get anything done. I am afraid that we are likely to see more of the same going forward. Public outrage over the visible excesses of an uncontrolled homeless population degrading public spaces is currently the most potent ingredient in the political mix, and I am afraid that for many people it will serve as an excuse to take a turn to the right politically. You can see that here in this thread, and I guess I am headed in that direction, at least with regards to this issue.

Pretty much every objection to the behavior of the homeless applies to one group: the long term homeless (homeless for at least many months, usually years) who are mostly mentally ill and/or addicted. In SF services are available but there is no effort to compel those living on the street to access outpatient treatment. Two things need to be noted: All those non-profits supplying services have city contracts and the city has a “Homeless Services Coordinator” who is supposed to coordinate what they do.

Finally to the degree money is the problem, more is coming in the form of a new $300 million tax—just about double current city spending—that a judge just found legal.

But what no one has done or plans to do is to enforce laws on public behavior . . . and that’s in spite of CA having a law that allows a judge to order “conservatorships” that includes the power to authorize compulsory institutionalization for those clearly beyond managing their own lives.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Isn't KOMO an ABC affiliate? (As per the logo in the video.)

I didn't think ABC was alt-right/Trumpist media.

Sinclair owns stations with multiple affiliations, and uses them to run right-wing hit pieces. Again, the clickbait headline is worse than the story...lots of people get suckered.

As for Pedestrian's stories...sounds like SF might be a lot worse than Seattle. We have plenty of disorder, junkies, etc., but I don't see much of that living and working on the edge of Downtown.

[llamaorama]

It would be easier to try to come up with an answer to your question, if I knew exactly which "people" you are referencing.

The ones who are seen as a problem, the ones who are the focus of this issue, and whose fate at the mercy of laws and policies.

The homeless population has diverse needs. There is no one size fits all solution. My short answer, though, is that with the chronic mentally ill population there needs to be a variety of options ranging from complete institutionalization to independent living.

And that's what I always thought was the right answer, but then whenever I state this in an argument people come storming at me with "I'm an expert and your wrong!!!"

The federal courts decided many years ago that the concept of "least restrictive environment" tailored to individual needs should be the standard applied. Federal and state law makers seem to have happily applied the first part of that standard over the years, resulting in almost complete neglect for the indigent and homeless mentally ill and intellectually challenged population.

I guess there's a fork in the road here. Do we respect the original wisdom behind this concept and make good on its promise by introducing the mental health and drug rehabilitation services which aren't there now and enforce the conditions of mandatory treatment? Or do we scrap the whole thing and not care that someone is unnecessarily given what is essentially a termless prison sentence because it's "easier" to achieve the goal of zero bums on the street?

and I am afraid that for many people it will serve as an excuse to take a turn to the right politically. You can see that here in this thread, and I guess I am headed in that direction, at least with regards to this issue.

You're afraid of it but you submit to it?

[austlar1]

Nobody is going to get a "termless" prison sentence for being homeless. They might be made subject to the rule of law and penalized for disruptive behaviors, and I don't have a problem with that. If you feel so strongly, you should advocate for this diverse population, work to get legislation passed, or volunteer your time providing help for them. At the very least get to know some of them. I have done quite a bit of that over the years, and continue to do so. I am not without compassion. Please don't try to entrap me or label me as politically incorrect.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by twister244

You nailed in here. Everyone wants to talk about how sad it is to see this unfolding, but at the end of the day, the choices are a set of "least bad" avenues to deal with the situation. One involves ponying up more money. The other means forcing some of these folks into help. Unfortunately, the ACLU will smash the latter to pieces because of their insane view that it's somehow better to allow these people to roam the streets F'up in the head, assuming they will make a conscious decision to check themselves into the right treatment. Letting these folks camp wherever they want isn't the solution...... it's a lazy cop-out of actually addressing the issues with some hard choices. It's interesting to hear Austin legalizing this. Here in Denver, we made it illegal a couple years ago to camp out in public areas. Police started doing sweeps, and of course, que the outcry from "advocates". During our mayoral election earlier this year, we put it up for a vote to reverse this policy, and the city basically said Fuck. No. to allowing homeless to camp out wherever they want.

Even in Austin, the "advocates" seem to be far outnumbered by opponents. The opponents include a complete range of political beliefs. The vast majority of Austinites vote Democratic and consider themselves social liberals, but filthy homeless camps that have developed all over the city don't fit into the agenda of most of us by any means. The anger has been building more and more each day since the mayor/council rescinded the ordinances.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Pretty much every objection to the behavior of the homeless applies to one group: the long term homeless (homeless for at least many months, usually years) who are mostly mentally ill and/or addicted. In SF services are available but there is no effort to compel those living on the street to access outpatient treatment. Two things need to be noted: All those non-profits supplying services have city contracts and the city has a “Homeless Services Coordinator” who is supposed to coordinate what they do.

Finally to the degree money is the problem, more is coming in the form of a new $300 million tax—just about double current city spending—that a judge just found legal.

But what no one has done or plans to do is to enforce laws on public behavior . . . and that’s in spite of CA having a law that allows a judge to order “conservatorships” that includes the power to authorize compulsory institutionalization for those clearly beyond managing their own lives.

One frequently homeless person I knew quite well by the name of Thomas was an on-again/off-again resident of SF. Thomas was almost 60 years old and a very talented and trained artist with schizo-affective disorder/bi-polar type. He knew how to work the system for housing and mental health care. Usually he was medication compliant. He was also a somewhat recovered alcoholic. I met him here in Austin in 2008 or so at a 12 step meeting. Somehow he'd saved enough money to move to Austin (he'd heard it might be a congenial place for him) and was staying in a youth hostel near downtown. He was on his meds and managed to get his entitlements switched to Texas. He also got hooked up with local state run mental health services and was able to obtain meds from them as long he he stayed in the system. He supplemented his income by making small "aht" items (he was originally from Boston) that he sold in a street market near the UT campus. He even managed to find a little efficiency apartment through a housing program sponsored by Goodwill. For a while, he was pretty happy, but eventually he started missing appointments at the psych clinic. As a result, he was automatically removed from the system. He could not get psych med prescriptions refilled until he was re-enrolled in the system, which took the better part of 6 weeks! This was exactly the kind of stress he was not equipped to handle, but the system had very inflexible rules probably designed to trim the patient rolls and stay within budget. There had been large recent cuts in the mental health budget for the state. Thomas quickly became very manic and then suicidal. He ended up with a brief psychiatric hold and when he got out, he was facing eviction for non payment of rent and also for disruptive behaviors in the complex. Thomas spent the next several months couch surfing or living on the streets. He finally decided to go live with his mother in Boston.

The next time I heard from Thomas was about two months later. He was back in San Francisco. Boston had not worked out for him. He was calling because he was now completely homeless living in encampments either in Golden Gate Park or down near the Civic Center. He was hoping I could send him some money. This proved very difficult because he had ID and other belongings stolen from him by a knife wielding homeless person in the GG Park encampment. I talked a SF friend into giving Thomas some money, which is another story altogether for another time. Thomas did manage somehow to work the system again in SF, get back on meds, and find some housing in a group home or flat somewhere in the Outer Mission (I wonder whether such places still exist in today's SF with the high housing costs).

I though that might be the last I heard from Thomas, but Austin still beckoned to him. Within a year, Thomas was back in the ATX. Once again he got his entitlements switched to Texas (he really bitched about the differential between SSDI in Texas vs California) and got hooked up with outpatient services again too. He continued to make and sell his "aht" up on The Drag across from UT. With help from Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (known locally as the Arch), Thomas found housing in a facility run by Foundation Communities of Austin. He had his own room and bath in a very attractive, secure, and well run former nursing home. He had access to a communal kitchen, lounge areas, and garden. He was free to come and go as he pleased, no visitors after 10PM. His rent was about 1/2 of his SSDI check. At first Thomas was thrilled with this set up, but he soon was bothered by the fact that it was located 6 miles south of downtown. He had to take a 45 minute cross town bus trip (with transfer) to get up to the UT area. Somebody from the 12 step meeting gave him a very old and rusted out car that still ran. Thomas never got a license but he drove the car until one day a tire shredded. Thomas needed to get a tire for the car. Clearly a cheap retread would do the job, but Thomas just did not have the skill set required to make this happen. He got quite huffy about it, pointing out that he was a Boston and San Francisco kind of guy who just did not know about such things. Back on the bus, Thomas started having unpleasant interactions with a surly female bus driver. She threw him off the bus. Now Thomas did not want to ride the bus. This meant Thomas was not going up to campus to sell his "aht", and he also was not keeping his appointments with the mental health provider. Sure enough he was again kicked out of the mental health system and unable to fill precriptions. Another psychotic episode ensued and another inpatient stay followed. Shortly after being released Thomas was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He opted to go back to Boston for treatment and surgery. His family paid for his return. I lost touch with him shortly afterwards, and he disappeared off of Facebook. He did not own a computer by the way. He always went online at the public library.

I'm sharing my Thomas story here, Pedestrian, because of the SF connection, but also to illustrate how difficult it is for even a fairly high functioning and generally compliant mentally ill person to stay in the system and maintain housing. Clearly there are some options for those that are able to do so, and San Francisco seems to spend a good bit of money trying to deliver services. Austin also spends a pretty penny, especially for a city in Texas. It still isn't enough and there is a complete lack of coordination and tailoring of services even to help those who want to help themselves. I don't have an answer, but I know we are doing nobody a favor to allow the homeless population to run amuck and degrade the environment for themselves and everybody else as well. Even somebody as high functioning as Thomas would benefit from conservatorship. He wouldn't like it, but he'd be a lot better off with some mandatory supervision and timely interventions.

[floor23]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

RE: the pic -- Hoovervilles are quite different than Heroin addicted folks lining our streets today at a time of record low unemployment.

That's entirely my point. The Hooverville's were 100x worse than whats going on today. A much higher % of the people were living in poverty then than they were today. Hooverville residents were also painted as lowlife's and drunks in a similar fashion to how the Seattle's homeless are painted as "heroin addicted folks".

The claim/narrative that "Seattle is dying" is incredibly exaggerated and devoid of economic reality. It shouldn't surprise anybody that the vast majority of homeless in King County live in the City of Seattle as that is where the almost all of the homeless/social services are located.

You also have to take into consideration the development of SLU which had always been a place for the homeless. Now that people live there the crisis which was always there just became visible.

Yes, homelessness is a problem, but 10,000 - 15,000 homeless people aren't representative of the City of Seattle and surrounding metro which has a population hovering near 4,000,000.

Suburban Locals have been preaching the "end of Seattle" and that its going to be the next Detroit since I was born. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.