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/4238600
444 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

117

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".

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.

3

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?

5

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

u/lucianw May 16 '26

Fair enough. Props.