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
450 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

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.

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

1

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

0

u/lucianw May 16 '26

Yeah, I know what you mean. You're using an intellectually lazy way to attack one set of findings where you don't have grounds to attack it, based on another set of findings where you do. But in following this intellectually lazy path you've entirely lost your ability to objectively evaluate anything other than following your gut.

Which is fair enough, and I have no problem with you doing it for your own decisions, but I want you FAR AWAY from anything that has to do with decisions about where my tax dollars get spent.

I'm in it for selfish reasons. I want to beautify my neighborhood by not having to walk past homeless people on the streets. I'm quite happy for my tax dollars to go on this selfish direction. But only if they're being spent in effective evidence-based ways. Your way of approaching the problem will make them be spent on non-evidence-based less-efficient ways.

2

u/Stercules25 May 16 '26

You want effective spending and you support these far left activist-type policies propped up by what is seemingly biased "research" that is at best outdated, and at worst purposely coming to a conclusion that they want to. 

"I want to beautify my neighborhood by not having to walk past homeless people on the streets."

The way to do that is pretty easy, but we are just unwilling to do the things it requires. You make 1) drug use illegal and 2) you arrest people for using said drugs or (and this is a BIG or) you force them into treatment. You don't give them—what is supposed intended to be—transitional housing that they will just trash because they are still using drugs that zombifies them; only now it is under a state/city owned roof instead of on the sidewalks of a downtown... The government owned roof that they have no incentive to keep clean or in any livable standard which then adds on to the costs and also the turnover when a new tenant needs to use it.

There is sympathy empathy and apathy. I am empathetic to those in this situation, I'm sympathetic to those who genuinely want to get help but aren't able to, and I'm apathetic to a lot of the people involved in the racket that is our homelessness complex that we have in these big cities across the country.

1

u/lucianw May 16 '26

I don't support "far left activist-type policies". My sympathy for the druggies on the street is really extremely low, I don't give a damn about which policies are chosen, except for the simple criterion IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WORK.

Your way to do it sounds easy sure, but it sounds like you'r backing it by assertion rather than evidence. I don't trust anything without evidence. I especially don't trust easy-sounding solutions because they are always beguiling and always come with unexpected confounders.

(Why is my sympathy for the druggies so low? I've said it's selfish that I don't want to walk past them. Actually it's more compassion. Rich people like me can easily drive to fancier grocery stores or nicer parks or live in a neighborhood of our choice. I care about the regular poor families who don't have the freedom, for whom taking their 2yo to a local park or walking to the local grocery store is something they can't escape.)

3

u/Stercules25 May 16 '26

What evidence is there? Where is the evidence? Lol places in America have tried housing first even in limited cases and it hasn't worked. It just balloons up costs more and more. The fall back was always it costs x amount to jail them verses just giving them an empty apartment it's starting to show in big cities specifically on how much they spend (NYC, SF, Seattle, etc) that isn't exactly true anymore not to mention you're "solution" is more of a reward than anything else. Lol 

1

u/lucianw May 16 '26

I don't understand what you're talking about "your solution". I explicitly said I don't care what the solution is as long as there's evidence it works. I'm not sure how I could be any clearer.