Salem, OR vs Seattle
Comments
-
Science.
-
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.
-
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.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?
-
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.
-
MikeDamone said:
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.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?
-
Thank you Yellowsnow for reminding me that it is wonderful not having to watch and listen to that nattering numskull speak every day.
-
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.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 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.
-
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.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?
There's none of if it in South Salem though. -
@Swaye, true?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.
-
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 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? -
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.salemcoog said:
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.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?
There's none of if it in South Salem though. -
The homeless are affected by the invisible hand acting in their own self interest.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.
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.
-
Funny how all problems can instantly be solved with a tax increase!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.
-
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?
-
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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?
There's none of if it in South Salem though.
The overwhelming population of homeless here in Salem in 2020 are the addicted and/or mentally ill that aren't from around here. -
You know what's amusing? That you think you sound smart.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?
Fuck off.
-
Too bad this virus didn’t do us all a favor...
-
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? -
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? -
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.
