Salem, OR vs Seattle
Comments
-
HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
-
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
Are you finally understanding life as we know it?HHusky said:
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
If you want to endorse the belief I described, do so bravely and directly.Sledog said:
Are you finally understanding life as we know it?HHusky said:
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.HHusky said:
If you want to endorse the belief I described, do so bravely and directly.Sledog said:
Are you finally understanding life as we know it?HHusky said:
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag.
Fuck off! -
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.HHusky said:
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer. -
Sled is brave enough to admit that I accurately described his views. blob is not.SFGbob said:
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.HHusky said:
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.SFGbob said:HHusky said:
Isn't that why you went?SFGbob said:
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.HHusky said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.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.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
White flag. -
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.Doogles said:Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
