The Seattle Times reports today that emergency services calls have been frequent at the recently-opened apartments in Seattle's Denny Triangle for homeless chronic inebriates. The facility's construction was paid for by government: a mix of local, state, county and federal funds; the operating expenses are borne by the feds (details on page two here).
Nearly every other day, the Seattle Fire Department responds to an apartment house for chronic street alcoholics to administer emergency medical aid to an ailing resident. The $11.2 million housing project, located at 1811 Eastlake Ave., puts to test a unique concept in housing homeless hard-core alcoholics because residents are allowed to drink in their rooms. The 39 aid calls to the building since it opened in mid-December far exceed what backers of the controversial project anticipated. And that raises questions about whether one of the key theories behind the project - saving taxpayer money by reducing visits by homeless hard-core alcoholics to Harborview Medical Center's emergency room — is going to pan out.
If the trend continues, the building will make a great live-work space for artistes. "They can't be cured" is the institutionalized mantra, but one wonders if a tough dry-out facility might actually do the trick for many. If so, the patients will have to find that cure elsewhere, without the helping hand of Seattle's social services Mafia. Well, there's yet another approach to the problem at hand - one you're just gonna love - under review today by the city council in Vancouver. Maybe this is in the cards for Seattle.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 23, 2006 10:31 AM | Email Thishttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/973syeao.asp
Do you think that the public would have been as accepting of the idea of free housing for drunks if the true number of emergency service calls were known? Of course not. It's not rocket science to come up with an average estimate; look at number of ER visits to Harborview, emergency service calls to the homeless, and you can get an accurate number.
Then when you realize that it's too high, you factor in made up theories about needing fewer calls because of safer conditions, blah, blah, blah.
Then the liberals in Seattle are "shocked, shocked!" when the acutal number is higher, but of course they don't end the program, they just ask for more money.
The Denny Regrade is the place where Denny Hill used to be, between First Avenue and Sixth Avenue, north of Virginia and south of Denny, which has in the the past fifteen years or so been rebranded by the restaurateurs and other esthetes as "Belltown," thus whizzing on Seattle history. (The name "Belltown" is correctly applied to the old Bell family homestead, which is First Avenue down to the water, between Blanchard or so and Wall or so.)
Posted by: Legast on March 23, 2006 10:50 AM1. No available treatment has worked for these people who are completely addicted to alcohol.
2. Thanks to the housing and care available, they are no longer winding up in the very expensive ER for non-life threatening situations (typically passed out from drinking).
3. The medical responses to the new housing unit would have happened anyway, just not all at the same place. The housing has not added emergency calls or impacted the emergency response system at all. If anything, it's more likely to reduce emergency response as the on-site people get to know the tenants better.
4. Do you really thing these people are living a lush life? Why don't you volunteer to help out and really learn something about their lives before you jump to criticize this work.
When you consider all the facts, you'll find that this is actually a less expensive way to handle the problem. And, contrary to what a lot of ignorant people seem to believe, the problem does exist and pretending it doesn't won't make it go away.
If you want to criticize spending why not look at the cost of incarcerating thousands of people for drug-related crimes. We spend significantly more on "three-strikes" inmates than we ever did, or would, curing them of the drug addiction that put them there.
The world is not black and white, good-guys and bad-guys, it's actually a lot of grey areas with unclear deliniations. Pretending otherwise is a prescription for failure.
Posted by: BB on March 23, 2006 11:13 AMThe inmates are running the asylum...
Posted by: Brian C on March 23, 2006 11:36 AMYes, I know there are truly needy people out there. That's why I volunteer my time, and give money to non-profit orgainzations designed to help those who ARE TRYING TO HELP THMESELVES.
I know too that it's sometimes hard to detect who is really working at bettering themselves, and who is simply living off others. But this is a pretty clear case to me.
What about clearing out the drunks, and putting some of our homeless teens in there? Some of these kids are out on the street by choice, but many are not.
I remember during our last bout of really cold weather, on TV seeing the police and others offering shelter to the homeless. Some chose to remain outside in sub-freezeing temperatures beacuse, and I quote, "they did not want to get up that early," if they stayed in the shelters offered. It's their choice, but I believe this demonstrates how far out of whack some people's priorities are.
I don't mind helping those who are really trying to help themselves. But providing a place for drunks to continue their irresponsible behavior, with no consequences for mis-behavior, no accountability, and no incentive to become "productive members of society" is not helping anyone.
And by the way, for those tempeted to accuse me of "not understanding", my mother was an alcoholic, and I stared drinking and abusing drugs around ange 12, and was solidly addicted to both by the time I was 14.
I didn't quite make it to the street, managed to hold a job, for which I am grateful. But what straightened me out, after 15 years of alcohol and drug abuse, was the realization that I would probably loose my job, and everything I had if I didn't straighten up.
I fully understand drug and alcohol addiction, and how hard it can be to kick the habit. It was tough, but I did it, because the people that worked with me held me accountable, and because I really wanted to change. If I had been "accomodated" in my habit, it's possible I may never have gone straight.
Posted by: MB on March 23, 2006 12:45 PMActually, I believe they are living a life only a lush could appreciate.
Posted by: South County on March 23, 2006 04:06 PMGovernor Lady needs to call a special session to pass emergency legislation to fund manufacture and distribution of top shelf hooch for gratis distribution to these folks.
Then Joel & friend's can obtain funds to set up a still behind their bio-diesel plant, make moonshine, and sell it back to the State for DSHS distribution to these neglected folks.
Posted by: More$4Joel on March 23, 2006 05:02 PMAnother question is what else exactly has been tried that doesn't cost $12 million and counting? I am certainly for helping these people, just not enabling them.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2006 05:19 PMNow this post should have been called, "Well, DUH..." BB has clearly had enough Kool-Aid to get himself drunk in the liberal agenda. I'll tell you what BB...when my child can go to college for FREE, I'll feel okay about giving a drunk brand new digs on my dime.
Here's what you do with drunks who get drunk in a beautiful, new government subsidized apartment. LET HIM WALLOW IN IT. If he dies, there's another one to take his place I'm pretty sure. Sound callus? Yup. If they don't care about themselves why the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks should I?
Posted by: Camas Mom on March 23, 2006 08:53 PMDoes it make more sense to spend the $100,000 or the $12,000?
And Camas Mom, the reason your daughter can't go to college for free is because our great leaders have spent the last fifty years transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. With about 95% of the wealth of this great country currently controlled by 5% of the population, there just isn't enough left to pay for your daughter's education.
Rather than sit here and spit venom why not do some real research into this and find out the truth. You might be surprised.
Posted by: BB on March 23, 2006 10:26 PMI worked downtown during that period and was directly involved with that and I know what I am talking about from first hand expirience. I still work downtown Seattle but am only indirectly involved now. But, you check the above data and you will find that I am right. I still want to know where that $100,000 a year goes to treat ONE person on the street. I am going to some research on my end but I think you should as well.
Posted by: Robert J on March 24, 2006 01:14 AMCheck with Bill Hobson, the executive director of Downtown Emergency Service Center. He's quoting recent studies done by the city, but not citing the specific studies or departments.
Posted by: BB on March 24, 2006 10:55 AMdry up the well, (or like C. Oh says above, make it unpleasant) and the drinkers no longer come to drink; look at ants--finding a sweet food source, they tell each other & come; remove the source & all go home on the same power they came; can Nature be so wrong? then why are we not trying this?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on March 27, 2006 09:37 PM