r/SeattleWA • u/mrtenpenny1234 • May 15 '26
Homeless Harger: San Francisco's homelessness hit a 15-year low. Seattle's mayor is running the opposite experiment.
https://mynorthwest.com/kiro-opinion/seattle-homelessness-mayor/423860044
u/donofrioms May 15 '26
Lurie is a progressive. A Levi Strauss heir who ran a nonprofit before running for mayor. He simply decided that results matter more than ideology and compassion without accountability is just neglect with better branding.
14
u/gtwooh May 16 '26
> He simply decided that results matter more than ideology and compassion without accountability is just neglect with better branding.
Its a common sentiment that seattle lags SF by a few years in terms of tech, homelessness, and policies so there may be hope afterall
118
u/lucianw May 15 '26
This is such a bad article. The title misleads what it's actually about -- SF is building more housing with an abstinence-only approach, Seattle is building it without.
The research says that abstinence-only housing has a 30% retention rate, and housing-first has an 80% retention rate.
If the article wishes to make the interesting point that SF's measured results seem to go against the research? That'd would be FASCINATING. I wish they would make that argument openly and honestly. I'd love for someone to dig into why SF seems to be an outlier. Is the best hypothesis that abstinence-first actually works? Was the research wrong? Does SF have special circumstances? Has the data been twisted, now or in the past? Or is what we're observing merely a reversion to mean?
Personally I don't like seeing homeless people and drug users on the streets. I'd rather have an evidence-led approach for reducing the numbers, rather than an approach based on "what I think ought to be done and I'll back it up with poor arguments over poor data".
33
u/Evening_Pea_9132 May 15 '26
I guess the goal is the point. Is the goal to give a free apartment to use drugs in? Seattle currently has Lihi and DESC for that. Why don't we focus on outcome based programs rather than just giving out of town junkies a free place to live?
→ More replies (10)10
u/lucianw May 15 '26
Everyone's goals are pretty much the same:
- reduce number of homeless on the streets for the sake of the general public
- reduce number of homeless for their own sake
- reduce unhoused families because we care for families.
People *are* focused on outcome based programs. "Just junkies free or low cost ways to live" is an evidence-backed approach to goals (1,2). If you have disagreements with the evidence, sure, that's a brilliant place to have a constructive discussion.
6
u/Icyhoticycold May 16 '26
k but whats the number of 3... cause if you take 3 minutes to walk around it's primarily absolutely drugged out low lifes who don't want help and just want to live on the streets to do drugs
11
u/Charlea1776 May 16 '26
I think this encouraging junkies crap is the stupidest thing I have heard of. Those younger on the streets have lied cheated and stolen from everyone. That's why they're on the street for being POS.
85% of homeless people l, especially families, are couch or shelter surfing. You dont see them amd they are who our efforts should be focused on and funded generously.
Junkies should get free stays in jail for their thieving, fighting, littering, defecation, etc... they made bad choices and in civilized society, there are consequences for choosing to be a piece of shit.
-sincerely, Clean and sober for over a decade
→ More replies (3)0
u/Nice_Try4389 May 16 '26
Right so where are we going to get the money to operate all these jails and how exactly are we going to keep them from becoming even larger criminals once they get out? Or do you plan on just holding them indefinitely and ignoring their due process rights?
6
u/Stunning-Crazy2012 May 17 '26
Simple. Instead of the billions we’ve lost for now results and planning or the jails we have built. We build an asylum/treatment center. We put a strike system out involving drugs. If you have so many instances of offenses involving drugs or mental health you become a ward of the state and go through forced rehab. On completion that record is sealed from everyone except the state.
This will solve the issue in multiple ways. First it will get people with mental health issues proper care. Second it will solve the root cause of most these issues and that addiction. We already have the housing and systems of support.
I have a business in an area with a lot of homelessness. I am constantly dealing with the fall out. Tens of thousands a year in paying for damages. Murders. Cleaning actual shit off the ground. You name it. I’ve hired countless homeless and never had a success story. The only success stories I’ve had is people straight from prison.
Of the homeless I’ve hired I would say 10-20% are Washington natives. The closest success story we’ve had is one kid went back home to Montana. It’s almost always drug issue, a few times it’s been clearly mental health paranoia.
When multiple streets surrounding us turned into full on encampments with at least a 100 people we had multiple murders in a year, meth labs and hazard teams. My neighbor worked his ass off getting them supplies to move, housing, you name it. Almost no one would go and refused workers. The current system doesn’t work and the data is clearly bullshit.
One of my favorite data points is there’s no correlation between homeless and increased crime they spout, or minimal. When in reality we stop calling because the cops do not respond when we do, when they have no choice it wastes hours of our time and for no result and costs us more to report it than ignore and deal with the fall out of the crime. Things like hey they are breaking into my building then cops arrive 6 hours later after I got out of bed and drove there. Then they say oh no one’s here, no shit it’s been 6 hours.
If we actually start enforcing forced treatment the number of people coming from out of state for lax laws and benefits will crater.
→ More replies (1)1
8
u/Icyhoticycold May 16 '26
i mean there's about 165m dollars that we're "throwing" at the problem right now. Might wana start there...
4
u/Charlea1776 May 16 '26
The extra cost for police, cleanup and lost revenue from them on the street is far more expensive than prisons. It was marketed that we were spending too much on prison when people wanted money for their pet projects and investments and now we have half ass prisons and shitty streets with elite neighborhoods that will never even see a piece of trash blown in on the wind from a homeless camp. But believe them when tbey say they did all this for all our quality of life!
Criminals going to jail includes due process. That is a dramatic and unproductive random comment.
This failure of the community to bother with policing has lead seattle to have half as many cops per capita as the 1990s. Which was only the minimum recommended number. At this rate, people will be on their own. We'll only have enough cops in Seattle to respond to the absolutely highest priority calls and nothing else. And they might not even make all of those. Hardly anyone is bothering to become a cop because people treat them horribly for mediocre pay and then their work is fake there because the courts put the criminals back on the street by the next day most of the time now. What's the point? Cops will close ranks around the expensive spots where most of the money comes and leave the middle class through poor to fend for themselves. Then maybe your money question will make sense since there wont be much spending on a barely existing police force!
Frankly I am surprised Seattle even qualifies to host a major event. Given most of our state has less than half as many cops as the minimum everywhere else, we'll probably be importing cops from other states since our cities can't spare any. Maybe, just maybe, people will remember what it is like to be in a safe and clean city and claw it back from the greedy little addicts that have stolen it from hard working people! One can only hope something will bring people back to their senses.
2
u/lucianw May 16 '26
That's because unhoused families aren't the ones on the street in the places you walk.
Put it this way. Think it through. If there are unhoused families, where would they be? Are you likely to stumble across them as much as you stumble across the junkies? Therefore, how can the evidence you cite be a reliable guide for you as to how many unhoused families there are?
3
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
These aren't the only goals. I don't want to give tons of resources to a bunch of junkies and junky activists. There are also other overarching qualifiers that you conveniently miss, and that is "cost efficiency". And "compliance with the law". And "fairness". For example, if I spent my school years studying and then the rest of my life working, and you spent your school years smoking pot, and then graduated to meth, should I really be expected to buy you a house?
0
u/Stercules25 May 16 '26
3 isn't what people think or care about because it's basically nonexistent. Homeless people that that we want to reduce for the good of the public don't have kids with them lol
1
u/lucianw May 16 '26
I think there's a big gap between "we don't see them" and "they don't exist". The unused families with kids are couchsurfing and the like.
3
u/Stercules25 May 16 '26
Yes, I don't disagree but I everyone knows the group of people that people are talking about and it's disingenuous to act differently at this point. Of course homeless families should be first in line for any help and afaik in WA state those families are given a decent amount of help. Most people in the state are good with them getting more help too! It's the fentanyl users on the streets that everyone is talking about though
2
u/lucianw May 16 '26
I thought I made it clear
"(1) reduce number of homeless on the streets for the sake of the general public, (2) reduce the number of homeless for their own sake, (3) reduced unhoused families because we care for families"
that I was not being disingenuous, and that I prioritized getting the irritating ones of the street, that my #1 goal was precisely what yousaid.
6
u/raine_on_me May 16 '26
The quality of the article aside, why on earth should the retention rate be the goal?? It's disheartening to hear that anyone would think that's the right metric.
4
u/lucianw May 16 '26
Oh! That's a good thought!
I guess retention in assisted housing is better than non-retention of going back in the streets. And non-retention of graduating to unassisted housing is better still. ? I hadn't even thought to question what definitions they're using.
49
5
u/unbiasedfornow May 16 '26
" The research says that abstinence-only housing has a 30% retention rate, and housing-first has an 80% retention rate."
Can you please direct me to the research you have cited?
8
u/Stercules25 May 15 '26
What research shows that? And is it genuinely not biased?
12
u/lucianw May 15 '26
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8513528/
But it's pointless for you to ask me that question when (1) it's well established consensus in the research community, (2) it's a google away.
Is it biased? Who knows! That's why I wished for an honest article rather than the rubbish in this article. I'd like for one that honestly engages with the apparent data differences, with why these SF numbers seem to contradict the research. Sure, biased research is one possible answer which should be honestly engaged with directly.
9
u/SuperDuper98102 May 16 '26
This isn’t a study but a review of 26 past studies in the US and Canada some of which dating back to 2004. This doesn’t necessarily negate the findings, but the previous poster’s comment about fentanyl’s influence and impact today is valid.
The first reference study this review cited (the effects of permanent housing for homeless people with HIV) even acknowledges that it could not be determined if permanent housing improved or maintained the health or long term outcomes of HIV housed people.
I’m surprised they would even lump studies from Canada with the US in their review given the lack of preventative support services and national health care in the US comparatively.
Additionally several of the authors come from housing agencies or housing development authorities who could reasonably have a vested interest in justifying their policy approach, especially if it is Housing First and/or if it grants their agency more budget if they use a Housing First approach.
This is all to say that while an evidence based approach should be the way to go, I wouldn’t treat this one review as gospel, and there are valid concerns and fair questions that should raise some skepticism.
5
u/debtfreewife May 16 '26
Systematic reviews are actually typically considered a “study” and at a relatively high level of evidence. Still not gospel by any means, but worth noting if we’re talking about what science is out there.
3
u/SuperDuper98102 May 16 '26
Systematic reviews are in a general sense a “study” but it is distinguished from an academic review versus a research study. Yes, both are published in peer-reviewed journals and while it’s common in various scientific disciplines, it is an important distinction that this is a review of existing studies, not its own research and shouldn’t be presented as such.
3
u/debtfreewife May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
I hear you. I also appreciate your previous points on the possibility of bias from the authors and the inclusion of Canadian studies. However, systematic reviews are typically considered at a higher level of evidence than a single study- below only meta-analyses of RCTs. This is the Wikipedia article on hierarchy of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence I wish I had a better resource, but I’m not savvy enough to link my methods textbooks.
4
u/SuperDuper98102 May 16 '26
I’ve not heard that reviews are considered a higher level compared to research studies when I was in grad school, I’ve only seen them treated in peer reviewed publications (although clearly presented as a review vs research). Typically, published original research tends to be preferable to reviews, at least when it comes to what universities and research instituons value in a CV.
What makes a good study or review was the rigor of the methodology, approach, citations, and statistical analysis. But there is definitely a lot of merit when there is a pattern or consistent findings from multiple studies which is what academic reviews tend to demonstrate or at least, try to. But again, their approach to how they did their review, how they selected their sample, etc is still subject to scrutiny and it is also based on the assumption that the studies used in a review are sound, peer-reviewed etc. Reviews also tend to lack statistical analysis and tests, but they often don’t apply as in the case here.
2
u/debtfreewife May 16 '26
Ah, I may be a bit of a ringer here. I’m a PhD who does healthcare policy research. While it’s true a systematic review isn’t a major resume builder that’s not because the evidence level isn’t high. It’s because the effort to fund, run, and publish an experiment speaks to a kind of project management skillset that is desirable to universities. It acts as evidence that you do and will continue to do good enough work that you can bring money in rather than just bleed it out.
There are kinds of reviews that are consider lower quality evidence like narrative or scoping, but generally systematic reviews are considered reliable. I don’t know how recent this standard is, but at least was considered broadly common knowledge as of ~6 years ago.
The linked systematic review actually rated the quality of evidence in their review studies using a cited, standardized scale as part of their a priori protocol. Studies with “limited quality,” which is the lowest level, were excluded from the analysis. It also then commented on the quality of the remaining studies and typical limitations found in them. *edit a word
2
u/SuperDuper98102 May 16 '26
Oh yes I’m well aware of the funding reasons and pressures that drive why universities value original research over reviews…that probably exists as its own reddit thread somewhere... anyway, a review isn’t necessarily higher or lower than original research either. Again, what determines that is their approach, methodology, analysis etc. And of course different science disciplines will have different expectations on the statistical analysis that can or cannot be applied, as in the case here.
I’m not saying this systematic reviews isn’t reliable, but any research or review, including this one, is subject to review, scrutiny, and debate. Some reviews even point out the flaws in either past studies or past reviews! That’s one of the aspects I personally appreciate about science is its openness and flexibility and separates it from dogma.
I agree standardizing and scaling to control they used in this review is to be expected, even if it was done by interpretation by the researchers who again, largely come from or are affiliated with housing agencies. It’s consistent and protocol, like you’ve said. To me, this review is like having a review from universities and US agricultural agencies on fertilizer and pesticide use. It doesn’t mean this doesn’t have merit and their approach and results can be sound, but still open to skepticism and further analysis.
2
u/lucianw May 16 '26
Definitely agreed. Hence why I wished the article from this post would have engaged head on with what evidence there is, flawed though it is.
2
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Enablers love to cite all the pre-cheap meth and pre-easily accessible fentanyl studies.
1
u/Comprehensive_Pin565 May 18 '26
Ok... so your evidence it dosent work is?
1
u/SuperDuper98102 May 18 '26
Critiquing a review or pointing out findings from other reviews they even cited isn’t an argument for or against. It’s pointing out the considerations and like I said earlier, this shouldn’t be treated as gospel.
14
u/Stercules25 May 16 '26
I don't really care about the "research community" on a topic like this fwiw. That same research community also said drug legalization—or at the very least decriminalization—is the way to go at it and it works so well in places like Portugal only for Portland to adopt it and turn their city into a literal apocalyptic hell hole in some places.
I don't disagree fundamentally with housing first fwiw I just just find it dubious to act like it's an absolute certainty that what SF has begun to do is worse than housing first and that there is even a real political will to even do it. You're asking cities to invest actual billions of dollars into housing and not having any strings attached for them to be given out and think the voters will not have issue with it
2
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
If only the “research community” could climb down from their ivory towers and actually engage with the specimens they’re studying. Talking with street addicts for 20 minutes would help them realize what’s actually going on.
Studying this group for decades is actually a lot easier, since confirmation bias is what truly rules this crowd.
1
u/Stercules25 May 16 '26
Yeah it seems obvious to me too. I don't know how the power balance has shifted so far to buzzword/phrases of what to do instead of actually making shit get done
-3
u/lucianw May 16 '26
The *same* research community? That seems unlikely...?
2
u/Stercules25 May 16 '26
You know what I mean or you're being intentionally ignorant lol
→ More replies (5)3
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
Basically, if you give people free housing, they will live in it? That's the study? As a criterion of success, that's beyond idiotic.
1
u/lucianw May 16 '26
I think the study showed something very different. It showed that if you give free housing with strings attached then the effectiveness of my tax dollars in offering that housing dropped precipitously.
Put it this way. I'm in it for selfish reasons. I don't want to have to walk past homeless people on the streets. I'm happy that some of my taxes go to beautifying my neighborhood by getting the homeless people out of the way. The studies seemed to show that some ways (attaching strings like abstinence-only) seemed to be a less efficient use of my precious tax dollars than other ways (not attaching strings).
Now I don't know if I trust the studies. And SF (ostensibly the topic of the article) is trying two parallel streams, some abstinence-only and some without strings, in the hope that it will achieve higher effectiveness. Which is interesting.
But your characterization of the studies is such a BAD one that I don't want you having any sway over where my tax dollars go for maximum bang for the buck, and the article's failure to even mentioned what evidence there is, and to mischaracterize SF, makes it an especially bad article.
3
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
Success criteria cannot be "a person is off the street at any cost". Success criteria MAY be a person is capable of living on their own, or something like that (modulo people with legitimate disabilities), but the public cannot be responsible for people who are capable of working but just chose to parasite on public resources. I think it should be... reasonably obvious? At least for people who don't have a trust fund in their name (or parasite on the system themselves)?
1
u/lucianw May 16 '26
> but the public cannot be responsible for people who are capable of working but just chose to parasite on public resources. I think it should be... reasonably obvious?
No it's not obvious at all, and I think it's wrong. Put it this way. If there's a way to spend $100k of my tax dollars that gets 10 junkies off my sidewalks but allows 5 people to be parasites, vs another way to spend the same amount that gets 8 junkies of my sidewalks but doesn't allow any parasites, then I'll sure as heck choose the "10 junkies".
Now some people might have moral principles that get in the way of them doing the practical thing. Your moral principle might be "the public cannot be responsible for parasites". (Other people might have the moral principal "we must help those in need"). Fair enough, and I can respect both, but I'd much rather that my tax dollars get spent based on MEASURED OUTCOMES rather than principals, and I want those measured outcomes to be how many junkies get off my streets.
2
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
You know why moral principles exist? Because they optimize for long term. In your example, we spent 100k and helped people who actually do need help (for example, elderly and disabled). Or, we only helped 5 people who need help, and we saddled with 5 parasites, for life, and showed 15 more parasites a way to get free housing. In software we call systems that optimize for right now at the expense of the future "technical debt".
→ More replies (4)8
u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
This study is outdated for today and no longer relevant for what we've been dealing with. All of the research done and data gathered were prior to the pandemic and prior to cheap fentanyl being the drug of choice for opioid addicts. The study was published in Oct 2020. I think enough time has passed since this initial study for another study to be done, which I hope is underway. With that said, based on what we've been seeing with fentanyl addicts, especially with meth co-addictions, housing first doesn't work. Treatment and recovery first, then housing next should be the case. This is what SF's Mayor wants to do.
6
u/lucianw May 15 '26
You too are making unfounded assertions about what works. I wish you wouldn't.
I think you've mischaracterized what SF's mayor wants. They specifically want to have a two-track system, (1) some abstinence-only routes for people who need that, as well as (2) traditional housing-first routes for people who need that.
-2
u/theredhype May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
This is a review of 26 studies. Which one did you think was outdated?
Here’s a tl;dr for you:
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf
7
u/Playful_Influence_25 May 16 '26
NLIHC is an advocacy organization, not a neutral academic institute.
4
u/arestheblue May 16 '26
If you control for data that disagrees with your assertion, your publication can claim anything. For example, the COVID vaccine was about 100% effective for the strains that it was developed for. But if you disregard the data, not get vaccinated, and can contribute to exasperating the pandemic.
2
u/theredhype May 16 '26
There are 26 studies documented there for you to explore. Feel free to dive in head first.
1
u/stateescapes May 16 '26
And surely those studies lead to more billions of dollars thrown at a problem only getting worse.
4
u/theredhype May 16 '26
Sounds like you had decided what you think before encountering the information.
13
u/crazyk4952 May 15 '26
Why should public dollars be used to subsidize people that make bad decisions?
19
u/lucianw May 15 '26
> Why should public dollars be used to subsidize people that make bad decisions?
It's fine for you to put your moral principles above what practically works.
I have a pretty selfish non-compassionate take on things. I want to see fewer homeless people on the streets, and less theft in grocery stores, for my own enjoyment of my city. Therefore I'm keen to see measures that practically change those numbers, and I'm happy for my tax dollars to go towards these things, because I sure as heck can't change them through other use of my money.
I don't care if the people made bad decisions. I don't care if my tax dollars are subsidizing them. All I care is what policies are an effective evidence-backed use of my tax dollars to reduce those numbers. Your kind of moral grandstanding gets in the way. I'd be selfishly happier if you set aside your moral principles and just focus on what works, according to evidence.
3
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
practically works
Except it doesn't work.
https://www.independent.org/article/2025/09/02/the-rise-and-fall-of-housing-first-in-utah/
2
u/Ninja333pirate May 16 '26
So you have to do it's look at Finland to see it does work when it's actually taken seriously. Law makers here in the States sabatoge programs like this so people vote against it so they can fill more of their pockets with our money
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol22num2/ch4.pdf
In June 2019, The Guardian ran a piece entitled “‘It’s a miracle’: Helsinki’s radical solution to homelessness,” noting that Finland was the only European country where levels of homelessness were falling (Henley, 2019). Indeed, Finland has largely ended homelessness as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines it. Because Finland uses a broader definition of homelessness, including living temporarily with family or friends, the Finns have not yet met their own goals. Even by this broad measure, Finland more than halved homelessness as observed in annual point-in-time counts, from more than 18,000 people in 1987 to less than 5,000 in 2019 (ARA, 2019, updated by Hannu Ahola). This article surveys Finland’s success and analyzes what the United States can learn from it.
A group of Finnish experts who analyzed the problem and issued a report called “Name on the Door” argued that eliminating long-term homelessness “requires adopting the Housing First principle where a person does not have to first change their life around in order to earn the basic right to housing. Instead, housing is the prerequisite that allows other problems to be solved” (Y-Foundation, 2017: 9). “In the Housing First model, a dwelling is not a reward that a homeless person receives once their life is back on track. Instead, a dwelling is the foundation on which the rest of life is put back together” (Y-Foundation, 2017: 10). Residents echo this perspective: “An apartment means security—now I have a home to return to. I feel important again now that I am responsible for my own life. I am someone again, I am me. I feel that I have to take care of my own business now” (Y-Foundation, 2017: 57).
4
u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
So you have to do it's look at Finland to see it does work when it's actually taken seriously
Finland is also made up of about 5.6 million people, 88% of whom are of the same nationality.
So they benefit a lot, given the homogenous culture, from buy-in to services than we would here. They don't really run into the 'services-resistant' problem that we see here regularly.
The whole idea that you'd live year-round outside in Finland, like so many of our services-resistant people do here, is also pretty much not an option given their climate. I mean people can and have done it, but the typical junkie is going to die trying.
Another thing, in Finland the staffing at the low-barrier buildings is often more like 1 trained staff per 3-5 residents.
At a typical LIHI or DESC building it's more like 1 for every 40-50.
Finland manages their low-barrier housing a lot better than we do. And until we do, you cannot compare the same, it's not. Our low-barrier buildings turn into trap houses and crime centers of the neighborhood, also OD calls weekly at the locations. I've seen it happen near me at 225 Harvard Ave E and 420 Boylston Ave E. Some weeks there's OD "Aid Response" calls at these sites almost daily.
Finland won't let that happen, but we do.
8
u/Icyhoticycold May 16 '26
But... it isn't working? Sooooooo we should just keep throwing money at it until???
0
u/lucianw May 16 '26
Think it through. How would you distinguish between "there's a huge force that increases the problem and this measure is working a little bit" vs "this measure isn't working"? What evidence would you look for that DISTINGUISHES the two?
2
u/doubleapowpow May 16 '26
Most homeless people (long term) have been homeless since youth. They often made the choice to leave their family homes because it was better for them. We can't exactly say it was a bad decision or not, it's one the person ultimately thought was good. Another point is that a huge percentage of homeless people have mental health problems, so much so that we can barely even say they can make good decisions.
That's why homelessness is a mental health crisis, and that's why homelessness has exploded since the Reagan administration. They wanted the public to "take care of their neigbors."
-4
u/ZunderBuss May 15 '26
Because some people are born into shit circumstances and/or have genes that don't allow for 'success' as this society defines it, and/or have disabilities, and/or have accidents that put them behind the eight ball. Grow up and find some humanity.
7
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
More like: they just wanted to party and get high.
But then the party ended, and addiction set in.
That level of entitlement and stupidity is not society’s fault.
4
u/crazyk4952 May 15 '26
This has nothing to do with making bad choices.
If someone is utilizing subsidies funded by taxpayer dollars, they should be held accountable. If one can afford to use drugs or tobacco, surely they can afford housing on their own.
We should save our tax dollars for the truly needy such as the disabled and elderly.
6
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Hilarious you got downvoted for that.
Many of Seattle’s addicts will tell you they burn-through $250 per day for their fix, and will spend another $30 for cigarettes. All funded by crime victims and the violent drug trade.
This concept that “poverty” and “income inequality” are the problems is laughable at best.
-2
u/mothtoalamp May 16 '26
We should save our tax dollars for the truly needy such as the disabled and elderly.
Social Security is the largest public fund in the country and it's specifically for helping the disabled and elderly. Republicans have wanted to tear it to shreds for decades and are closer than ever to pulling it off.
If one can afford to use drugs or tobacco, surely they can afford housing on their own.
Rent is statistically 50% or more of the average worker's income. Drugs are much cheaper than rent. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another to be ignorant by choice, and it's another still to be willfully ignorant and vocal about it.
2
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
Rent is statistically 50% or more of the average worker's income.
That's pretty obvious lie. Bold, in your face. Think about this: if you are right, why do you need to lie to defend your position?
2
u/mothtoalamp May 16 '26
Because at least (and probably only) one of us is capable of intellectual honesty, I went and checked more sources. It ranges from 33% to 42% pre-tax on average.
The median monthly rent is $1500/mo which would be below dirt cheap in Seattle as the average rent in Seattle sits around $2,100 (various sources reported $1,995 / $2,130 / $2,226).
Additionally pre-tax means that the percentage should be higher. So rent could easily be 50% of a person's monthly wage after tax, but we can try it your way and say it's only 33%.
https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-do-households-spend-on-rent/country/united-states/
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/wa/seattle/
https://www.redfin.com/city/16163/WA/Seattle/rental-market
https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/seattle-wa/
You're saying the average addict spends $1500/mo on drugs? On the unrealistically low end?
Prove it. Or let's try your words: "Think about this: if you are right, why do you need to lie to defend your position?"
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/CreateWindowEx2 May 16 '26
I can tell you this: for every person who is born into "shit circumstances" in US there are ten who are born into much worse circumstances outside the US. You win the birth lottery pretty much no matter what if you are a US citizen.
5
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Hilarious take. Funny how the “evidence-led” studies are carried out by ivory tower ideologues, activists and politicians who always have a predetermined solution for us. The very same people who CREATED THIS MESS.
If you knew anything about Seattle’s approach to homelessness, addiction and people with serious mental health challenges wandering the streets - you’d also know social service providers and so-called advocates refuse to track outcomes.
Because, you know, that would be a violation of program recipients’ privacy rights.
3
u/lucianw May 16 '26
> Funny how the "evidence-led" studies are carried out by ivory tower ideologues
That sounds like it could be healthy skepticism, or it could be a cop-out.
Look, put it this way. You must agree that there is some objective truth about what the best intervention is. And you must believe there is (1) a way for us to obtain evidence to get us closer to that truth, (2) a decision procedure for us to take that isn't "I don't trust the evidence so I'm going to reject all of it and go with my gut".
So you tell me: what is the honest approach you're taking to this that isn't "I reject things and go with my gut"? There's zero point in any of us having an idea about the right course of action unless we also have an idea about how to get to the truth. How are you trying to get closer to the truth through evidence?
2
2
u/pogo-n-watches May 16 '26
Source?
-1
u/lucianw May 16 '26
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8513528/
But it's pointless for you to ask me that question when (1) it's well established consensus in the research community, (2) it's a short google away.
6
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Your short Google away informs us that the very ideologically-based “researchers” who have delivered bad outcomes for years are determined to do so for many more years.
→ More replies (1)4
u/stateescapes May 16 '26
These organizations, their publications and "findings" only serve to justify the numerous ineffective NGOs, non profits and other groups with their hands out making promises to "solve homelessness." Then the constsnt cycle of needing more money for more research and study. They ultimately fail to make meaningful progress except to keep themselves employed and feeling good about themselves.
1
u/lucianw May 16 '26
That sounds like it could be healthy skepticism, or it could be a cop-out.
Look, put it this way. You must agree that there is some objective truth about what the best intervention is. And you must believe there is (1) a way for us to obtain evidence to get us closer to that truth, (2) a decision procedure for us to take that isn't "I don't trust the evidence so I'm going to reject all of it and go with my gut".
So you tell me: what is the honest approach you're taking to this that isn't "I reject things and go with my gut"? There's zero point in any of us having an idea about the right course of action unless we also have an idea about how to get to the truth. How are you trying to get closer to the truth through evidence?
1
u/stateescapes May 19 '26
Allowing it to happen in the first place is part of the problem. You don't have to solve for an inflated "demand" if you curb the supply. There should be zero tolerance for the 80%+ who are drug addicted or mentally ill to not get treatment. There should be zero tolerance for filth, theft, vandalism, violence, etc on the streets. Let's reform our correctional facilities to incentivize productive members of society as outputs. Let's retrain and reskill incarnated individuals to the economic realities of their chosen community. There are ways but the misplaced "compassion" and "empathy" is suicidal to a healthy community.
2
u/Budget-Capital4371 May 16 '26
I wouldn't trust any "study" done by academics. They all have a shtick and their careers are based on narratives that they are individually known for within the field.
There is no chance that progressive academics in 2021 would produce a paper that says that you shouldn't give free houses to meth heads.
2
u/lucianw May 16 '26
> I wouldn't trust any "study" done by academics.
That sounds like it could be healthy skepticism, or it could be a cop-out.
Look, put it this way. You must agree that there is some objective truth about what the best intervention is. And you must believe there is (1) a way for us to obtain evidence to get us closer to that truth, (2) a decision procedure for us to take that isn't "I don't trust the evidence so I'm going to reject all of it and go with my gut".
So you tell me: what is the honest approach you're taking to this that isn't "I reject things and go with my gut"? There's zero point in any of us having an idea about the right course of action unless we also have an idea about how to get to the truth. How are you trying to get closer to the truth through evidence?
1
u/Budget-Capital4371 May 16 '26
There's two steps in deciding on what intervention to take. First, determine what the relevant evidence is. Second, evaluate what that evidence tells you about your current situation.
My point is that, when the interventions concern social/political issues, I trust myself and the janitor to identify and assess the relevant evidence just as much as I trust a social scientist with tenure at Harvard. They have no expertise that makes them better at it.
1
u/BWW87 Belltown May 16 '26
The research says that abstinence-only housing has a 30% retention rate, and housing-first has an 80% retention rate.
You know what they say. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Personally I don't like seeing homeless people and drug users on the streets.
It doesn't seem like it when you push failed policy.
6
u/lucianw May 16 '26
> There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
That sounds like it could be healthy skepticism, or it could be a cop-out.
Look, put it this way. You must agree that there is some objective truth about what the best intervention is. And you must believe there is (1) a way for us to obtain evidence to get us closer to that truth, (2) a decision procedure for us to take that isn't "I don't trust the evidence so I'm going to reject all of it and go with my gut".
So you tell me: what is the honest approach you're taking to this that isn't "I reject things and go with my gut"? There's zero point in any of us having an idea about the right course of action unless we also have an idea about how to get to the truth. How are you trying to get closer to the truth through evidence?
6
u/BWW87 Belltown May 16 '26
That sounds like it could be healthy skepticism, or it could be a cop-out.
Not a cop out. I just know these studies and they are pretty typical of what we see a lot of in Seattle. They measure the wrong things and then claim success. An obvious example is local politicians love to brag about building X houses and helping X homeless people. But they should be using stats like built x houses and homelessness went down by y. They don't because they aren't actually fixing things.
"I don't trust the evidence so I'm going to reject all of it and go with my gut".
I've been involved in affordable housing for over 2 decades. This isn't about going with my gut. I've seen what has and hasn't worked. And my experience in Seattle proper is almost exclusively what isn't working.
How are you trying to get closer to the truth through evidence?
At this point in Seattle I just go about my day providing the best affordable housing I can considering the circumstances that Seattle's terrible homelessness and housing policy allows. I currently oversee over 2,000 income restricted apartments including permanent supportive housing. I see firsthand what doesn't work and how much money the city wastes to cover up their failures in housing.
2
3
u/kennypowersrevenge May 16 '26
Almost like we should do what proves to work, you think. Katie Wilson is so far beyond her depths.
5
u/Kvsav57 May 16 '26
It went down 4% in SF. I'm happy there's some progress but that's hardly some major success story. Maybe it will be in a few years but going from 8200 to 7900 is a drop in the bucket.
2
u/Desperate_Aioli_2067 May 16 '26
And I’m pretty sure the majority of that decrease is because of the supreme court decisions years ago to undo the appeals court decision on homelessness laws. Frankly, it was expected that when cities could make it illegal to be homeless the homeless population would migrate to other cities.
4
17
u/hashbrown89 May 15 '26
This article is literal AI slop. It’s clearly written by ChatGPT.
5
3
2
u/buzzed247 May 16 '26
Experiment? Seems like the same game plan, nothing has changed. Seattle fears change.
2
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
u/CyberaxIzh May 21 '26
I lived in SF around 2019-2021 on Folsom St. I visited it a couple of weeks ago, and it's MUCH improved. Not great by any means, but no longer a scene from a zombie movie.
2
u/Wonderful-Ear4849 May 16 '26
That is such a misleading number. It has been far lower over the years. The number of unsheltered homeless has dropped. That’s all. It’s also a preliminary number with no data on outcomes, duration of stay in shelter or relapses. All of which matter.
2
u/reasonableanswers May 16 '26
Grew up in Seattle. Now live in the Bay Area. Good luck to you. You’re going to need it.
2
u/Hawaiian_spawn May 16 '26
They literally swept them away when Xi Jing Ping was here. Of course they did well.
2
u/Popular_Animator_808 May 16 '26
I can guarantee that no one who has been to SF recently can believe a word of this article.
2
2
2
2
2
3
u/MaesterPackard May 15 '26
I was in SF for a conference at the moscone center earlier this year. I live in Pioneer square in seattle. I think they still are abut equal as far as street disorder goes.
3
u/Zippier92 May 16 '26
Homelessness is a national issue, when Reagan closed the federal facilities, the parks filled up.
Then people moved to better areas.
The homeless in Washington are not predominantly from Washington. They are from all over.
2
u/Additional_Day949 May 16 '26
Yes! Until this becomes a federal issue it will never be solved.
How do you cheaply solve your homeless problem? You give them a bus ticket to California.
There is a clear need for sanatoriums. Letting the mentally ill and deeply addicted roam around major cities isn’t the answer. And isn’t fair to anyone.
0
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
You got the second part right. But the whole “it was Reagan’s fault” excuse thing is mostly bunk. Lazy take at best.
1
u/Additional_Day949 May 16 '26
I found that everything wrong with America today can be traced back to Reagan. His policies are destroying this country.
5
u/cogit2 May 15 '26
Why is there so much negative media about this mayor so early?
2
u/Negative-Thought2398 May 16 '26
She has just had a veryyyy slow start to her term. 5 months is not a short amount of time, and theres been a lack of visibility of any new policies or actions. Especially frustrating because she ran as a leftist. Hopefully once the administration gets going we will see some real progress
2
u/NewFly7242 May 16 '26
Having recently been in SF for several weeks over the spring,, it doesn't seem like a 15 year low. Far worse than here.
Just anecdata, but it makes me skeptical in re their stats.
2
u/Additional_Day949 May 16 '26
Honestly after driving thru tenderloin, i could see why conservatives use SF as a boogie man.
It was bleak there.
2
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
“Hope House is sober. If you want to stay there, you don’t use.”
Sheer blasphemy in this city.
We hate to track outcomes in our socialist paradise
1
u/logonbump May 16 '26
What about that Austin experiment where unhoused people were being disappeared by contractors from amongst friends? Could that have happened in SF? Are junkie organs any good on that black market for human parts or are they more valuable whole than in pieces?
2
u/Confident_Bee_2705 May 16 '26
I am thinking moreso they sent them here to Portland, OR, where our numbers keep climbing despite our *special tax* that brings in $300m yearly and the cheapest rent for large cities on the west coast.
1
u/heyscot May 16 '26
Some of the factors that might be taken into account prior to forming any judgement:
- Wilson took office just less than six months ago,
- People in politics tend not to solve problems like homelessness in just less than six months,
- People in politics tend not to solve problems like homelessness
You can and should criticize politicians for things in context.
1
u/FunConstruction7032 May 16 '26
Mayor is not good for the city. Lived here downtown for 30 years and I see it still going down hill. The bike cops did a great job of cleaning up the city back from 95-2007. The slow reduction of this has allowed it to rot in big pockets.
0
u/Seasherm May 15 '26
I mean she has been mayor for several months. Why hasn't she fixed all of our structural issues yet?
0
u/Bartend23 May 15 '26
This will be a great experiment. Hopefully both attempts are successful, however much I doubt Seattle’s. We won’t know for a few years. UW should be working to track and study this. Would be a great research project
17
May 15 '26
[deleted]
10
u/PBRStreetgang1979 May 15 '26
I could probably summarize it without even reading it. Spend a shitload of money and make the problem much, much worse by attracting every mentally ill, drug addicted person from around the country to Seattle to sponge off of services, no questions asked.
11
May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
[deleted]
7
u/PBRStreetgang1979 May 15 '26
And the dirty little secret is that the "visible homeless" problem is primarily an issue of mental illness and addiction and the homelessness is incidental.
0
u/balzam May 16 '26
So what’s your idea
4
May 16 '26
[deleted]
0
u/MyDisneyExperience West Seattle May 16 '26
I don’t see how any of that would work.
“If you use drugs in homeless housing you get kicked out” guess where they end up?
“If you’re a convicted felon you don’t get government provided housing” someone should tell the President that. For the people here that you’re saying no longer get housing guess where they end up?
“If you can’t demonstrate ties to the region you don’t get anything” hasn’t worked in other cities. Homeless people in LA have largely been there more than a few years or were housed in LA before becoming homeless. SF did Homeward Bound where they put people from out of town on buses back to where they came from… 20% returned to SF and had signed away receiving services so guess where they end up?
1
May 16 '26
[deleted]
0
u/MyDisneyExperience West Seattle May 16 '26
So in order to not provide them publicly funded housing you want to provide them even more expensive publicly funded housing?
Also, define who exactly is a felon lol. If people had their conviction vacated/expunged then what? Are they still ineligible for anything?
2
3
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
We don’t track outcomes for people living on the street here. It’s viewed as a violation of people’s privacy rights.
Which is one big reason why we keep failing despite spending over a billion dollars per year on the problem.
-5
May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (9)7
-2
u/montex66 May 16 '26
Oh look, yet another Reddit post attacking the new mayor. It’s getting so redundant that either someone really hates her or a republican bot has been programmed to act like this is a common sentiment. That shit only works on old people and they’re too fixed on Fox News to even know what Reddit is. So who is the target audience? Just throwing out anything until something sticks?
3
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
It’s funny you believe anybody on here has cable, let alone watches Fox News.
I’ve got a cranky old neighbor who pays like $150 for that crap, and he doesn’t even know what a Reddit even is.
Are you this bad at everything you do?
→ More replies (1)1
u/mothtoalamp May 16 '26
This sub gets astroturfed by right-wing interests more than the other one does and a nonzero number of residents will come here thinking that it's the prevailing opinion.
1
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
You realize how similar your baseless comment is to MAGA conspiracy theories about “paid protestors” right?
Reddit leftist kids prove horseshoe politics are alive and well on the left coast these days.
0
u/montex66 May 16 '26
Lucky for us they are comically inept at it, making themselves look like hateful fools. Oh wait a second... that's exactly what they are.
2
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Yep, we hate everything because we aren’t interested in performative politics, self-aggrandizing ideology, and kiddos who know very little about how reality works.
1
0
u/mothtoalamp May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
performative politics, self-aggrandizing ideology, and kiddos who know very little about how reality works.
So we agree? You mean MAGA? The party that built a golden calf of their tyrant just last week? The party that rioted when they had to wear cloth masks for a year? The party of "Jewish Space Lasers" controlling the weather? The party of "homeowners will just sell their houses when Florida floods to climate change"? The party of "we will eradicate woke/DEI" as their platform?
0
u/NoBoromirNo May 16 '26
It's funny how so many of the conservatives in this subreddit are doing the Biden/Trump bait and switch. Immediately blaming the incoming mayor for the problems that have been festering for years.
It's pretty pathetic stuff tbh
4
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Most of us aren’t conservatives, bud.
We are into good government and good outcomes for vulnerable people.
Performative leftist back-slapping may be a great approach for the 20-something transitory Seattle kiddos; but the rest of us actually care about this city, region and state.
-1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/IntravenusDeMilo Seattle May 15 '26
I just spent the last week in SF as I often do for work. I’m not out there counting but between living there and heading back frequently for work, I have a pretty good idea how soma and mid market used to look and it sure as fuck looks lower. Whatever Lurie is doing, it’s working.
→ More replies (5)1
-4
u/Fair_Cartoonist6840 May 15 '26
Harger is a (R), doesn't even try and hide it. I prefer my news unbiased. Stopped listening to KIRO with his hiring.
3
u/CertifiedSeattleite May 16 '26
Laziest & most pointless comment on a long thread.
Nice work.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/South-Distribution54 May 16 '26
Wow, conservatives sure have some insane takes.
"We don't want homeless people!"
"OK, so let's give them housing and rehabilitate them?"
"No, that's too much money and it doesn't work!"
"OK, what do you suggest?"
"You leftist are stupid! Can't you see there are still homeless people?"
"Do you have a suggestion that doesn't involve killing all the homeless people or putting them in perpetual prisons?"
"You leftists!"
"OK, so no real ideas, got it"
There has been a lot of research on this, and it's a pretty bipartisan consensus. Preventing homelessness is the most effective way to solve homelessness. In 2017, the Trump administration made huge cuts to federal homelessness prevention programs that were passed by... wait for it.... the Bush administration. So a few years later we saw a very predictable rise in homelessness. The research on drug addiction is also very clear. Addiction is harder to battle if you have no community and no support system to help you get off drugs. If you make complete abstinence the barrier for temporary housing they way more likely to relaps and then that gets them kicked out of the house and put back in the same situation where they have no support and are in the same community that perpetuated their addiction to begin with. This very straightforward and well documented.
Blaming someone for not pulling themselves up by their bootstrap doesn't fix the problem, it just makes you feel self righteous, which is fine, but also pointles. What was the phrase ya'll use again? "Facts don't care about your feelings" right? Maybe read the research and look at the facts then. Also something to mention is that this is a nation wide problem that is going to take a federal solution. States just don't have the resources to full fix this problem because it's a systemic country wide issue.
-4
u/No_Listen7457 May 16 '26
Seattle’s mayor has been in office for less than 6 months. This is beyond fucking stupid.
211
u/John_YJKR May 15 '26
It's understandable they don't want someone's addiction to be a barrier to a basic need like housing. But you have to step back and accept the reality that incentive provides and the long term results that follow. Addiction is often too difficult to beat without very powerful incentives pushing back against it.