Seattle Is Dying (and it's not alone)

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I mean I have neighbors in southern Arizona who live in single family homes most of which they own (at least are paying for with a mortgage) and I suspect some of them have little income beyond Social Security. You can do that there . . . and it's not even the least costly place in America to live. That honor probably belongs to some places in the middle of the country far from the coasts or anything that qualifies as a "vacation destination". There's no way people not benefitting from rent control or inherited property could live in the coastal cities on Social Security.

The problem is that it is really hard to live in those places without a car. Postwar sprawl was designed for the middle class. It is logistically difficult for people without money to live in them. In terms of design, urban neighborhoods are much more conducive to living as a poor person because all of your daily needs are accessible in your local neighborhood or by transit. That is probably why poor people haven't left the cities even as they have been priced out. How does a poor person in sprawl do their laundry if they don't have a wash machine or a car to get to the laundromat? How do they get their groceries?

The logistics of being broke are the hardest part of it. Figuring out how to conduct you day to day life without any of the assets that planners have spent 70 years assuming that everybody has. Homeless people probably congregate in cities because it is the easiest place for them to live their lives. Even if you roust their camps they will still likely remain in the same general areas.

[Steely Dan]

right wingers complain that SSP is too left wing.

left wingers complain that SSP is too right wing.

regular people are like "ehhhh, it's about right".

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by edale

It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.

Or they can just all move to all of these half-empty and cheaper cities of the midwest, where folks might be able to afford a home and they don't have homeless people camped out on major city streets.

But no.....the midwest just isn't cool enough...

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. .

I dont really think so, conservatives are a minority for urban areas sure but they still represent, even in the most extremely left wing places, 10-30% of the population.

When it comes to urban issues it comes down to more of a question of how much the state/city/gov should force urbanization or not. If you are more conservative your more likely to let the market decide approach, harping on places like SF of the poster child of zoning and restrictive government causing issue. If you are more left leaning you will tend to want the opposite, finding a place for government power to push people into more urban styles of living for any number of reasons.

Liking urban living/suburban/rural is much more personal choice, there are plenty of old hippies living on farms or in small rural towns jut like plenty of hardcore nationalists living in city centers.

Also not really the point but the homeless issue isnt a housing or jobs issue its almost entirely mental illness and drugs. There is plenty of private and public help for the homeless but they are largely incapable of getting that help and since the mid 1980's in the USA states are not allowed to force these people into institutions.

There were always be homeless people but the current huge spike is simply due to the ending of the institution system

[Obadno]

Dupple post

[Pedestrian]

What does London lack that SF has in abundance? Misery on the streets
Heather Knight July 9, 2019 Updated: July 9, 2019 4 a.m.

Most tourists visiting London are awed by Buckingham Palace, St. Paul’s Cathedral and Tower Bridge. But when you’re a longtime San Franciscan traipsing around the British capital, some of the city’s most striking sights are those that aren’t there at all.

There’s some litter, sure, but no heaps of trash. I didn’t see any needles or piles of poop. There were a few homeless people holding cardboard signs asking for money or shaking cans in hopes of change, but I didn’t see any large tent encampments, injection drug use in public or people clearly out of their minds due to drugs or untreated mental illness.

Every subway escalator actually worked — and none were clogged with needles or human feces as they sometimes are here. (I was also shocked to hear a voice over a loudspeaker at Waterloo station apologize profusely when a train was running four minutes late. Imagine that!)

. . . in talking to friends and colleagues who’ve done their own recent traveling, it’s clear that many cities around the world and the U.S. maintain a better quality of life for residents of all income levels, as well as create a better experience for visitors.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said he saw far fewer homeless people during a spring vacation to Athens and Rome than he does in San Francisco . . . .
Did he see public injection drug use in Athens or Rome?

“No!” Mandelman said adamantly . . . .

People still in hospital gowns or bracelets released back to the streets from the city’s psychiatric emergency rooms?

“No!” he said again. “Absolutely not!”

. . . Mandelman said San Francisco’s live-and-let-live mentality also plays a damaging role.

“They have a lower tolerance for this level of disorder,” Mandelman said of other cities. “Collectively, we seem to be resistant to intervening in folks’ lives.”

He said the months-long squabble over approving minor changes to the city’s conservatorship program — which was eventually passed — was a good example of San Francisco dithering rather than taking quick, decisive action to address our street misery.

And without quick action, the problems just get worse . . . .

Supervisor Catherine Stefani is traveling around Italy with her daughter now. She said every city she’s been to on the trip has been cleaner than San Francisco, and she’s seen no evidence of drug use on the streets or severely mentally ill people abandoned on the sidewalks.

(And even) plenty of American cities lack the “Night of the Living Dead” scenes playing out here every day.

I visited New York City in April and saw just a few homeless people on the streets and far less trash and drug paraphernalia. A friend who is taking her son on a tour of Major League Baseball stadiums this summer — best mom ever — said she hasn’t seen any city with San Francisco’s level of homelessness or trash . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...php?psid=c8dPh

These people--Mandelman, Stefani--are the ones responsible for the existing situation. Mandelman especially is a leading SF "Progressive" which means his politics are just to the right of Mao Tse Tung. If even they are beginning to wake up, maybe there's hope (but I doubt it).

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by Chef

It is becoming one. It may not be Trumpian but it is a bastion of center right neoliberalism with a healthy side of petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass.

The further the Democratic Party moves left, the more territory they are going to be ceding to the right, which is occupying more moderate positions. Trump isn't even that right-wing or traditionally Republican in many of his key positions.

I don't see why urbanism should be any different. "Atlas" is eventually going to shrug as aging Millennials start becoming the property owner, tax payer, parent, and business owner. It is easy to be progressive when you are young, poor, or affluent. Everyone in between is more at risk of this lawlessness and societal dysfunction. Those people will gradually become more conservative. This new push towards socialism, identity politics, and social justice will further alienate moderate liberals. Donald Trump being a lightning rod dominating every aspect of culture is blinding the left from the growing discontent in their constituents.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

right wingers complain that SSP is too left wing.

left wingers complain that SSP is too right wing.

regular people are like "ehhhh, it's about right".

I wish this discussion were happening in some other thread but since it's here I have to say: The thing that bothers me about SSP is not whether it's left wing or right wing but the (1) snark and (2) lack of respect for the other side of any argument.

If you can't disagree with someone without calling them a "cultist" or some other name, or suggesting their disagreement is just because they just haven't read enough like you have or otherwise insulting anybody holding any opinion not your own., there's something wrong.

OK. Now. Isn't there a section somewhere for discussing the issues of SSP? I think the topic here is too important--essentially it's about how long some of us can continue to live in the cities we have called home for many years--to have it hijacked. In many ways, this subject is more important than how good the transit is or how tall the buildings are or any of the rest of it. It wears you out when you get panhandled 3 times within a block from your front door or worse, attacked at least daily by some raving lunatic. I never go anywhere now without my pepper spray and personal taser.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Chef

It is becoming one. It may not be Trumpian but it is a bastion of center right neoliberalism with a healthy side of petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass.

Exactly this.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"Petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass" is very predominantly a left wing thing these days.

No, it's a very establishment thing.

[edale]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Or they can just all move to all of these half-empty and cheaper cities of the midwest, where folks might be able to afford a home and they don't have homeless people camped out on major city streets.

But no.....the midwest just isn't cool enough...

Huh?? Who is going to pay for their relocation? How would you force people to relocate? Why would midwestern cities want to import a bunch of homeless people?

The majority of people camping on the streets and creating nuisance issues aren't people who are down on their luck or simply priced out of housing. Those people are much more likely to sleep on friends couches or live out of their cars. That population probably could benefit from relocating to cheaper parts of the country. The street dwelling population likes the west coast because 1) no freezing weather and 2) they're given carte blanche to do whatever they want on the streets. I don't think homeless people are thinking about 'cool' places to live.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Or they can just all move to all of these half-empty and cheaper cities of the midwest, where folks might be able to afford a home and they don't have homeless people camped out on major city streets.

But no.....the midwest just isn't cool enough...

The midwest... Officials here cant get the homeless campers out of river beds to shelters because the homeless dont want to leave an area they are comfortable with.

Without tough love, these people will all be dying on the streets. As a downtown LA resident, i literally see it everyday. The ACLU, homeless "Advocates" etc are all incredibly naive and are killing these people. We have to force them off the streets immediately

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by edale

It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.

As a decade plus resident of Los Angeles, I second this message. I don't believe the rapid increase in homeless population is a liberal v conservative issue... I think people on both sides are fed up with the status quo. If someone is living on the streets and addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or both... it is not ok to wait until they harm themselves or someone else before society does something.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by LAsam

As a decade plus resident of Los Angeles, I second this message. I don't believe the rapid increase in homeless population is a liberal v conservative issue... I think people on both sides are fed up with the status quo. If someone is living on the streets and addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or both... it is not ok to wait until they harm themselves or someone else before society does something.

As I said above that is because in the 80's we very actively made involuntary commitments illegal, the police literally cannot force these people into help unless they find it themselves (they are incapable) or they commit a crime.

Law of unintended consequences, mental institutions were vilified far beyond what actual crimes ever took place, and 30 years on we are literally paralyzed to figure out a solution to this problem, that was solved, but we choose to un-solve.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

mental institutions were vilified far beyond what actual crimes ever took place

Crimes? I suppose the Hollywood hype of movies about "snake pits" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" did make them seem awful.

But I actually worked (briefly) in one. I graduated medical school a semester earlier than my class and spent 3 months earning money for a down payment on a car by doing physical exams and admission paperwork in a North Carolina state mental health hospital in Butner, NC. I didn't see any "crimes". In fact the care of some very sick people seemed pretty good to me. Many of the patients were there voluntarily--only a few were not, actually.

But every time this subject comes up, I have to point out again that the conservative Reaganist impulse to save money coincided in time with the development of effective anti-psychotic drugs (phenothiazines) which caused some very liberal people to support opening the gates of these facilities and closing them down, depending instead on community-based outpatient care.

Actually, something eerily similar is happening right now in San Francisco where the town's most "progressive" officials have forced the imminent closure of the city's only juvenile detention facility. So henceforth our underage criminals will also be on the street. Let's only hope the funding for what's supposed to be the alternative to "juvie" is more generous than what was made available in the 1970s for community mental health care.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by The North One

No, it's a very establishment thing.

But the establishment in the US is shifting from right to left, or more accurately from GOP to Dem.

[bossabreezes]

Seattle is beautiful, as is San Francisco. As they are both on the west coast, sadly, their beauty is being shadowed by their problems.

The US has long been a country of relatively few problems. So much so, that the new political ideologies, as some people label as ''liberal'' and ''for the people'' turn completely upside down, and put the liberties of people who aren't capable to exercise these liberties (for the good of themselves or the general population) ahead of the standard, law abiding and productive citizens.

The west coast is experiencing this type of political rot before the rest of the country, but eventually it will reach the whole country and cities will again be hostile places where few will want to venture out- in fear of stepping on hypodermic needles, human feces, or being attacked by mentally ill and/or chemically altered people.

Call it negative, call it fatalistic, but the country has chosen liberty of the oppressed to take more precedence than the majority. This doesn't work for long, and after chaos there will again be calm. But for a while it will be difficult and many people's lives will be changed negatively.

It's important to protect and help those who need it, rather than accept their negative lifestyles (regardless of choice or not) as normal and therefore strongly detract from the majority's liberties. That's not a democracy.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by edale

It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.

You're right on target. But it's no longer just the West Coast cities. Pls see posts above about Austin, the latest city to go the same way. The filth has been here for a couple of years but has exploded in the last few months, and now the mayor and city council have rescinded the ordinances that were at least an attempt to preserve a somewhat civil society.

Our paper had a couple of letters to the editor today from some very prominent business owners who are dealing with the filth. It's affecting their business. The message was that we have lost our city.

[austlar1]

It is simply a myth that only West Coast cities and now Austin are grappling with large numbers of visible homeless. It is happening all over the Sun Belt from coast to coast. Just do a Google images search for any Sun Belt city with homeless camp and see for yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=10...24.FmoJaF-fkqU

https://www.google.com/search?biw=10...24.UKONe_KtEUA

https://www.google.com/search?biw=10...mg.JdHZg1KVRZ0

https://www.google.com/search?biw=12...30.SNmdC-mFhRw

https://www.google.com/search?biw=12...24.10v-03jHtfg

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Seattle is beautiful, as is San Francisco. As they are both on the west coast, sadly, their beauty is being shadowed by their problems.

The US has long been a country of relatively few problems. So much so, that the new political ideologies, as some people label as ''liberal'' and ''for the people'' turn completely upside down, and put the liberties of people who aren't capable to exercise these liberties (for the good of themselves or the general population) ahead of the standard, law abiding and productive citizens.

The west coast is experiencing this type of political rot before the rest of the country, but eventually it will reach the whole country and cities will again be hostile places where few will want to venture out- in fear of stepping on hypodermic needles, human feces, or being attacked by mentally ill and/or chemically altered people.

Call it negative, call it fatalistic, but the country has chosen liberty of the oppressed to take more precedence than the majority. This doesn't work for long, and after chaos there will again be calm. But for a while it will be difficult and many people's lives will be changed negatively.

It's important to protect and help those who need it, rather than accept their negative lifestyles (regardless of choice or not) as normal and therefore strongly detract from the majority's liberties. That's not a democracy.

this guy gets it too.