On Monday morning, I was interviewed by Dan Sytman and David Boze on KTTH about my post on the homeless in Seattle. After the interview, and after receiving some critical emails, I thought that I should repeat the central argument of that post, but make it more direct.
Seattle has a serious homeless problem. Anyone who wants to verify that can do so by taking a couple of hours, as I did, to walk around Seattle's downtown parks, many of which have been taken over by the homeless.
This is shameful. Seattle should be ashamed that ordinary citizens are afraid to eat lunch in a downtown park, ashamed that parents do not dare to bring their children to play in those same parks.
It is also shameful that Seattle allows (or tolerates, or encourages) anyone living like this. For years I thought that the strongest argument for welfare reform was the damage that welfare did to those who received it. (By the way, many on welfare, and many in neighborhoods where welfare was common, agreed with that argument.) Similarly, if you care about the homeless, if you want them to have better lives, as I do, you will see their present condition in Seattle as shameful. You will want something done about the homeless for their own sake.
If, that is, you actually care about the homeless.
As far as I can tell, on the whole Seattle does not care about the homeless. Consider this fact: Almost no one blames city officials for this shameful problem. No one is saying, for example, that, if Mayor Greg Nickels does not do something about the homeless problem, then he does not deserve reelection. (Partly that's because he's a Democrat and our local journalists are reluctant, to put it mildly, to blame elected Democrats for anything. But only partly.) Neither Seattle paper seems much interested in the problem, and it does not seem to be an issue in the city council races, as far as I can tell from across Lake Washington.
Next week, I have a follow-up post to show that the problem can be alleviated, and the week after that a post with some ideas on how it could be alleviated.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at October 10, 2007 03:41 PM | Email ThisIf Hillary is elected, the homeless problem will cease to exist entirely.
Posted by: Palouse on October 10, 2007 03:49 PMThere are many shelters that will take care of these people, but many won't go because they would have to follow the rules of no alcohol, drugs or prostitution.
If you really want to help these people, do not give them money. Give them directions to the shelters that will care for them and help them get off the street. Giving them money may make you feel good, but it only enables teir behaviors.
If you want more information, check out the flyers that Starbucks has been handing out on how to handle the homeless in Seattle.
Posted by: Ken on October 10, 2007 04:06 PMAnd Palouse, when Hillary is elected, I will be homeless. Don't forget it, because I think you will, too, with the new McGovern as President.
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 04:14 PMThe homeless in this Democratic state are showered with bennies and many (not all) prefer the bennies you Dems have given them that other states don't. That is why there is such a huge problem.
Once you get rid of the sorry sacks, then we can discuss the people who really need help.
A question just popped up, "exactly what do you do to help the poor and helpless?" I chose to become a foster parent, plus several thousand dollars a year of donations over and above my obligatory donations to Christine and the IRS. What have you done except whine and complain?
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 04:32 PMAdditional thanks to Berkeley, SF, SD, etc. Seattle would be so much nicer if responsible folks actually got elected on occasion.
Posted by: Danny on October 10, 2007 04:35 PMSeattle/King County has 8,000 homeless which are attracted here by "pinhead leaders" in the word's of Danny.
I guess by Danny's observations and thoughtful analysis we can all conclude that Dallas leaders are "pinheads".
The pure gibberish written by most here is just lazy commentary. The reasons why someone is homeless is complex, the solutions to helping get off the street are diverse and complicated. There are plenty of organizations that Swatter eludes to that are effective in the services they provide and their efforts to solve this problem.
Posted by: BA on October 10, 2007 05:19 PMI don't like the ACLU's position on property rights or identity group politics, but I agree with them on this issue.
The mentally ill, who have no history of violence, are innocent until proven guilty. You can't imprison them if they don't want to be imprisoned. Their right to liberty is equal to ours. If they hurt someone, or are a clear and present threat to others, they can be arrested under the same laws that would apply to "sane" folks. And no, being a threat to themselves is NOT an imprisonable offense. I don't care whether you call it a prison or a mental institution, peaceful people can not be imprisoned unless they have violated the rights of another person.
About 75% of the homeless are addicted to some expensive intoxicant or other. We help them maintain this addiction with our handouts.
Homelessness is usually a choice. This is why most of the homeless are male. You have to be a tough person to succeed as a homeless person, and, though some women can do this, most can't. And most of the homeless are able-bodied as well. Giving handouts to disabled people is one thing, but giving them to able people tends to create dependancy, disease, death and despair.
Seattle attracts the homeless with it's homeless programs. I agree. But they have a right to live on the street as long as they harm no one. The liberals are half right on this one.
Whether via the government, or personally, we keep the homeless on the streets with our handouts. It hurts them to give them handouts. If you are really compassionate, do not give them anything.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 10, 2007 05:44 PMI imagine that depends on your definition of "harm". The merchants that lose business because urine soaked "harmless" people foul the sidewalks might disagree with you, just for starters. The families that want to use our parks without having to worry about stepping on needles or being accosted in the park restroom might take issue with your definition as well.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 10, 2007 05:53 PMI think you are mixing your attributions.
The mantra of "ending homelessness in 10 years" comes from the Seattle City Council, the Mayor and King County Council members. Bob Ferguson being the the loudest chanter.
Please provide a reference to your claim that ending homelessness in 10 years is Republican Administration policy. If true, such compassionate utopianism would be another example of the end of hard-nosed Republican practicalism and why there wouldn't be an (R) after my name if I ever ran for office.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on October 10, 2007 05:56 PMDon't care where all the bums and panhandlers go, just as long as it is far away to someplace that gives a rat one way or another what these "people" do - perhaps Canada will take in all our lazy do-nothings....
Posted by: John Galt on October 10, 2007 06:21 PMKeep it up John - we need less of this caring about others!
Posted by: BA on October 10, 2007 06:29 PMThere are already laws on the books for littering, consuming alcohol in public parks, urinating in public, and I'm guessing here, camping out on the right-of-ways of public bridges and overpasses.
Why is it that these "homeless" people get a free pass with these laws?
What do you think would happen if I hiked up to the top of Tiger Mountain in Issaquah and pitched a tent and declared that to be my home, drank cheap wine all day, growled at children that came hiking past, defecated in the nearby woods, and held up a cardboard sign asking for spare change?
I'll tell you what - they'd have me off the mountain and in the hoosegow pronto.
Why doesn't that happen in the parks of Seattle?
Posted by: Smoley on October 10, 2007 06:41 PMcheck it out:
http://www.ich.gov/slocal/index.html
There are lots of other media references.
The other type are your permanent homeless. People who panhandle and sleep on the streets, etc. Of these a small number are homeless by choice. They choose to live on the streets for what ever reason. The bulk however are mentally ill. For them social services don't work too well because the mentally ill refuse them, or simply can't make use of them. Not only that but mental ills often results in treatment being seen as threatening, an evil plot, ect.
The question is, do we let the mentally ill live on the street, or do we bring back mental institutions. The answer isn't easy, but those seem to be the only choices.
Posted by: Giffy on October 10, 2007 07:33 PMI'm as wrong as I could be. Googling "ending homelessness in ten years" produces thousands of hits from around the country. The King County plan is in the first ten. Hooray!
Too bad we couldn't have just kept the Kingdome to house all of our homeless. Or at least "The Worm".
Not very compassionate of Gary Locke and the rest of our leaders to have destroyed a beautiful home for the homeless.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on October 10, 2007 07:41 PMIt's not very PC to point this out, but homeless people seem to congregate around 1) sources of alcohol, and 2) stupid people who hand them money. This is why you see them in downtown Seattle, and not in the millions of acres of woods they could disappear into if they wanted.
I think it is a valid question why tolerating this behavior is "progressive" in any way. It's certainly indulgent, but I don't see that it "progresses" us towards anything except giving up our public spaces to people who make them unusable for the rest of us.
There is nothing truly "progressive" in any of the beliefs and policies espoused by liberals. They only serve to temporarily warm the hearts of the fools who implement them, while ultimately leading to destruction for all.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 11, 2007 06:43 AMGiffy, the local housing authorities seems to want to do group homes or smaller apartment complexes. Thereby, they spread out the people, and, MOST IMPORTANT, put the poor near people who have succeeded (i.e. have jobs and have homes) rather than centralize their numbers and create a pattern for failure (being around people on the dole begets more people on the dole, while the opposite is true). I kind of like that idea.
Posted by: swatter on October 11, 2007 06:56 AMGo back and read your note again. Can you see the flaws in your own argument? If not, let me help.
We could start with the fact that Dallas has double the population of Seattle.
We could add that it is close to a lot of urban population centers that ceased to exist after Katrina. (New Orleans was just one of them.)
It is a transportation hub for railroads, highways, etc.
It's a warmer climate and a larger surface area.
It's also a lot closer to Mexico and shares the legal and illegal migrant issue with other border states.
Yet it has a population of homeless less than 12% higher than Seattles.
Now why is that?
Posted by: johnny on October 11, 2007 07:12 AMWrong, Palouse-if Hillary gets elected we'll ALL be homeless.
Posted by: John425 on October 11, 2007 07:43 AMAnd no worries, when Hillary is elected, the rich will pay for national healthcare and will save social security. /sarcasm
Posted by: Palouse on October 11, 2007 08:48 AMA. winter is deadly and summer's no picnic either
and
B. cops don't put up with public nuisance crimes.
It's hard in a normal year to die from exposure in the winter or heat stroke in the summer living outside in Seattle. Also, the cops, prosecutors, and courts here are completely uninterested in law enforcement other than revenue enhancement. The park next to the county courthouse is an open-air drug market, for the love of pete. It's truly ridiculous how worthless our so-called justice system is if it can't keep the trash off its own front lawn.
Posted by: weather on October 11, 2007 09:52 AM4. The irony of all this is if you are downtown as I am every day, ride mass transit everyday as I do, walk in the parks with the homeless and eat your PP&J as I do in the parks, you hear and learn things.
The homeless you see are there because they chose to be there.
Seattle provides more care than any other city, according to the homeless, not me. I hear on a regular basis transients discussing the "free" benefits of Seattle.
Some tell me thay have moved because of the free tucherary health care, the free bus pass if you are under a Doctor's care, numerous foodbanks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters.
I am really hard pressed to feel sorry for those that I support by working hard every day and have done so for more years than I want to remember. Just so that others can move here, not contribute, and spend my hard earned tax dollars.
Heartless you say,well I could have been one of those on the street, but "I" "chose" not to be!
Posted by dces worker at October 10, 2007 04:22 PM
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
recent inventory of homeless units in Seattle-King County. .... When age, gender or family composition can not be determined because ...
www.seattle.gov/humanservices/csd/docs/HomelessPopulationSubpopulationChart2005.pdf - Similar pages
I honestly do not know what to do about mentally ill homeless and those with substance abuse problems. I do know that there should be intervention in the lives of the homeless children. I think that different populations of the homeless require different solutions. I live in the city and I suppose that aside from the cultural advantages an urban area affords, there is the character of not being homogeneous.
Final comment, is the disdain some posters feel also directed at the kids?
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 12:20 AMWith you on that. I believe Serita's law makes it easier to get kids out earlier
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 05:34 PM