Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
During its crusade that is killing jobs and making life miserable,
That's unbiased journalism! Just ignore the fact that Seattle has one of the fastest growing economies in the country.
It's growing fast as fuck for those on the upper side of the spectrum. It's decelerating at the same pace for those fucks who can't keep up...ergo, homelessness.
Honest to god, I'm not calling for genocide on the homeless - but trying to assimilate them into 'regular' life just isn't working. Might be better to build camps and send them off to someplace between Ellensberg and Moses Lake to get their shit together. Tent cities under the freeway ain't cutting it.
The article thesis is that liberal Seattle policies have had the inverse effect that were intended and further exacerbated the homelessness problem they intended to correct. Let's argue about that rather than economic growth and other bullshit that may have been mentioned somewhere, but isn't the point of the article. Or not.
The article thesis is that liberal Seattle policies have had the inverse effect that were intended and further exacerbated the homelessness problem they intended to correct. Let's argue about that rather than economic growth and other bullshit that may have been mentioned somewhere, but isn't the point of the article. Or not.
The article loses credibility when stupid shit like that is said in like the third paragraph.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Not to mention that wage growth has exploded, from like 65k per household in 2011 to almost 90k per household in 2017. I would imagine that's in the top 5 in the country for percent growth as well.
That being said, yes Seattle has some fucktarded policies and I don't agree with the head tax. And housing is out of control, but you can always choose to live in maltby.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Guess we might as well not even pitch the tents then.
The article rightly criticizes some of Seattle stupid policy decisions like minimum wage, zoning and head tax but its a big stretch to say these policies are the primary drivers of Seattle's homeless problem. Seattle coddles the homeless so it's become a magnet. Drugs, mental illness and lack of enforcent are the drivers.
Minimum wage has maybe impaced some service jobs but these people could easily move outside of Seattle proper to escape. Zoning has more to do with Seattle's home ownership affordability crisis. Seattle has built plenty of new apts. Head tax is LIPO.
The article rightly criticizes some of Seattle stupid policy decisions like minimum wage, zoning and head tax but its a big stretch to say these policies are the primary drivers of Seattle's homeless problem. Seattle coddles the homeless so it's become a magnet. Drugs, mental illness and lack of enforcent are the drivers.
Minimum wage has maybe impaced some service jobs but these people could easily move outside of Seattle proper to escape. Zoning has more to do with Seattle's home ownership affordability crisis. Seattle has built plenty of new apts. Head tax is LIPO.
Reasonable response. The coddling part is probably a big part of the problem.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Lots of land out toward Vantage. Build the shit out of tiny houses and start the rehab process.
Then maybe move them to Kittitas when they pass certain requirements - drug testing, education, full mouth of teeth.
Earn your way back into civilization.
The Throbber is not kidding. Rich people go to rehab and they get cleaned up. Do the same for the poor. It's insanity to think throwing degenerates into an encampment of degenerates with full access to needles and booze and drugs and no food is the optimum environment for turning one's life around.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Lots of land out toward Vantage. Build the shit out of tiny houses and start the rehab process.
Then maybe move them to Kittitas when they pass certain requirements - drug testing, education, full mouth of teeth.
Earn your way back into civilization.
The Throbber is not kidding. Rich people go to rehab and they get cleaned up. Do the same for the poor. It's insanity to think throwing degenerates into an encampment of degenerates with full access to needles and booze and drugs and no food is the optimum environment for turning one's life around.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Lots of land out toward Vantage. Build the shit out of tiny houses and start the rehab process.
Then maybe move them to Kittitas when they pass certain requirements - drug testing, education, full mouth of teeth.
Earn your way back into civilization.
The Throbber is not kidding. Rich people go to rehab and they get cleaned up. Do the same for the poor. It's insanity to think throwing degenerates into an encampment of degenerates with full access to needles and booze and drugs and no food is the optimum environment for turning one's life around.
Seattle isn’t losing jobs...yet, however the city does have a high amount of homeless per capita. Out of control homelessness and economic growth can coexist.
Then why the fuck is the article talking about losing jobs?
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
Simple...The article is wrong on job loss.
That doesn't mean the city doesn't have a homeless problem. As mentioned, I think a lot of it has to do with city hall pandering to them. Perfect example is Eugene/Springfield. A few years ago the city of Springfield banned panhandling, so what did the homeless do? They walked across the bridge to Eugene and took up shop there. Now the city of Eugene has double the amount of transients, because the city allows them to be there. If people stopped giving them money and the police were allowed to kick them out of parks and river beds, they would go somewhere else. It's like having a deadbeat child living in your home. The child isn't going to move out or get a job if he/she is allowed to mooch from the fridge and use the home WiFi at no charge.
Comments
During its crusade that is killing jobs and making life miserable,
Honest to god, I'm not calling for genocide on the homeless - but trying to assimilate them into 'regular' life just isn't working. Might be better to build camps and send them off to someplace between Ellensberg and Moses Lake to get their shit together. Tent cities under the freeway ain't cutting it.
HTH
Seattle built more apartments than any city in the country this decade.
Now there are signs the supply is catching up with demand, as rents have stagnated.
Swaye - the thesis of the article is that Seattle's regulations on new housing are preventing the area from building enough units to meet demand. Seattle has more cranes than any city in the country, and has built more new units than any city in the country. The only point I agree with is that condo regulations are retarded here, but that isn't contributing to homelessness as apartments are being built instead.
This amounts to laughing at Seattle for growing too fast due to a great economy and high paying jobs.
That being said, yes Seattle has some fucktarded policies and I don't agree with the head tax. And housing is out of control, but you can always choose to live in maltby.
Minimum wage has maybe impaced some service jobs but these people could easily move outside of Seattle proper to escape. Zoning has more to do with Seattle's home ownership affordability crisis. Seattle has built plenty of new apts. Head tax is LIPO.
Then maybe move them to Kittitas when they pass certain requirements - drug testing, education, full mouth of teeth.
Earn your way back into civilization.
The Throbber is not kidding. Rich people go to rehab and they get cleaned up. Do the same for the poor. It's insanity to think throwing degenerates into an encampment of degenerates with full access to needles and booze and drugs and no food is the optimum environment for turning one's life around.
That doesn't mean the city doesn't have a homeless problem. As mentioned, I think a lot of it has to do with city hall pandering to them. Perfect example is Eugene/Springfield. A few years ago the city of Springfield banned panhandling, so what did the homeless do? They walked across the bridge to Eugene and took up shop there. Now the city of Eugene has double the amount of transients, because the city allows them to be there. If people stopped giving them money and the police were allowed to kick them out of parks and river beds, they would go somewhere else. It's like having a deadbeat child living in your home. The child isn't going to move out or get a job if he/she is allowed to mooch from the fridge and use the home WiFi at no charge.