Salem, OR vs Seattle

YellowSnow

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

GrundleStiltzkin

Science.

89ute

Pitching a tent and shitting wherever you want to has become normalized. Easier to say it's high cost of living than it is to say it's accepted.

MikeDamone

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

Because it’s not. That’s a left wing talking point to shift blame from their shitty policies to the “greedy developers” and capitalism. I assume your question was rhetorical.

WestlinnDuck

Here in Oregon we are voting on a 1% sales tax and a 1% income tax to "solve" homelessness. People are homeless because most are mentally ill, drug addicts or alcoholics or all three. Obviously not having a job makes paying the rent tough whether its $2000 a month or $500 a month. If you have a rat problem, feeding the rats doesn't solve the rat problem. For a leftard, that is a concept that they can't grasp. They also can't grasp the concept that destroying millions of small businesses might also have consequences.

YellowSnow

MikeDamone said:

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

Because it’s not. That’s a left wing talking point to shift blame from their shitty policies to the “greedy developers” and capitalism. I assume your question was rhetorical.

Bendintheriver

Thank you Yellowsnow for reminding me that it is wonderful not having to watch and listen to that nattering numskull speak every day.

PurpleThrobber

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

The Throbber knows way too much about homeless issues, programs and resources allocated thereto....that said (Jake Browning still sucks), there will ALWAYS be a segment of the population who gives no fucks and no matter what, they'll be homeless.

The problem the lefties don't understand is that they think utopia exists and will frame their arguments with 100% perfection in mind - when that ain't ever gonna happen no way no how. So, to answer your question, the lefties in Seattle choose to lie more creatively than their counterparts in Salem and blame the evil capitalists/landlord/high cost of living because they can.

If Salem had a high cost of living, they'd be running that play as well. But even lefties aren't that fucking obtuse.

Kaepsknee

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

I-5 runs straight the middle of it. Many freebies from faith based charities and other organizations. High tolerance for low barrier behavior and a lack of political will to do nothing but kow tow to them. Most of the Homeless here are from somewhere else.

There's none of if it in South Salem though.

doogie

WestlinnDuck said:

Here in Oregon we are voting on a 1% sales tax and a 1% income tax to "solve" homelessness. People are homeless because most are mentally ill, drug addicts or alcoholics or all three. Obviously not having a job makes paying the rent tough whether its $2000 a month or $500 a month. If you have a rat problem, feeding the rats doesn't solve the rat problem. For a leftard, that is a concept that they can't grasp. They also can't grasp the concept that destroying millions of small businesses might also have consequences.

@Swaye, true?

GreenRiverGatorz

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

HHusky

"The poor you will always have with you."

Those who wanted to see an end to boardinghouses and flophouses, and also want to limit or curtail publicly subsidized housing, didn't leave the poor--especially the single poor--a lot of alternatives. And charity raises the NIMBY cries too.

Salem rents are only low relative to Seattle, Portland, SF and LA. And supply?

GrundleStiltzkin

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

I-5 runs straight the middle of it. Many freebies from faith based charities and other organizations. High tolerance for low barrier behavior and a lack of political will to do nothing but kow tow to them. Most of the Homeless here are from somewhere else.

There's none of if it in South Salem though.

Not only is Salem the political capital, it's also the penal capital (causation?) of the state. My experience with Salem, the orbit around the prisons played a big role.

PurpleThrobber

GreenRiverGatorz said:

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

The homeless are affected by the invisible hand acting in their own self interest.

If Seattle has better bennys than, say, Salem, the hobos are going to gravitate there. See also San Fran -word is out among the degenerates that Frisco hands out free drugs and booze, they are hopping the first greyhound/ train/hitchhiking to the Bay.

There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.

Sledog

WestlinnDuck said:

Here in Oregon we are voting on a 1% sales tax and a 1% income tax to "solve" homelessness. People are homeless because most are mentally ill, drug addicts or alcoholics or all three. Obviously not having a job makes paying the rent tough whether its $2000 a month or $500 a month. If you have a rat problem, feeding the rats doesn't solve the rat problem. For a leftard, that is a concept that they can't grasp. They also can't grasp the concept that destroying millions of small businesses might also have consequences.

Funny how all problems can instantly be solved with a tax increase!

HHusky

PurpleThrobber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.

The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.

Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?

Kaepsknee

GrundleStiltzkin said:

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

I spend a fair bit of time down in Salem because of my in-laws. The place is every bit as overrun with homeless layabouts as Seattle and yet it's a dirt cheap place to live. So how can the high cost of living allegedly be a major contributor to homelessness in Seattle, but not in Salem?

I-5 runs straight the middle of it. Many freebies from faith based charities and other organizations. High tolerance for low barrier behavior and a lack of political will to do nothing but kow tow to them. Most of the Homeless here are from somewhere else.

There's none of if it in South Salem though.

Not only is Salem the political capital, it's also the penal capital (causation?) of the state. My experience with Salem, the orbit around the prisons played a big role.

The Prisons have a little to do with this here, Not as much as you would think though. Upon release ,you are given a place to live in a halfway house for X amount of time and then get assistance in getting a job at Jiffy Lube and other companies that get tax breaks for hiring them and also get housing assistance or are put up in the Motel 6 . These type of people who aren't out and out insane, will either make it at their job and get long term housing assistance. Or they will fuck up again and be back in the clink.

The overwhelming population of homeless here in Salem in 2020 are the addicted and/or mentally ill that aren't from around here.

PurpleThrobber

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.

The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.

Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?

You know what's amusing? That you think you sound smart.

Fuck off.

ThomasFremont

Too bad this virus didn’t do us all a favor...

SFGbob

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.

The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.

Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?

Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.

HHusky

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.

The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.

There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.

The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.

Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?

Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.

Isn't that why you went?