Salem, OR vs Seattle

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

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?

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.

Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.

Sled is brave enough to admit that I accurately described his views. blob is not.

HHusky said:

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.

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.

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

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.

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.

Gosh maybe that's why he said "almost always" and not "always" Dazzler.

Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.

Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.

What does "enabling" them mean, blob?

So far you gals have expressed disapproval of public and private assistance to the homeless. Do you think that they can just all decide today not to be homeless and be off the streets by tomorrow?

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?

And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.

So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?

And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.

So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.

No, I wish to put a boot right in your Kunt. Gosh what does enabling the homeless mean Dazzler? Your response shows how fucking disingenuous that question of yours always was.

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?

And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.

So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.

No, I wish to put a boot right in your Kunt. Gosh what does enabling the homeless mean Dazzler? Your response shows how fucking disingenuous that question of yours always was.

Besides criminalizing being on the streets, do you have any other solutions?

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?

And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.

So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.

No, I wish to put a boot right in your Kunt. Gosh what does enabling the homeless mean Dazzler? Your response shows how fucking disingenuous that question of yours always was.

Besides criminalizing being on the streets, do you have any other solutions?

Yes, yes Kunt because "being on the streets" means you have to shit on the sidewalk and shoplift and do drugs in public. Fuck off Dazzler.

salemcoog said:

ThomasFremont said:

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

Like they say,


Thud

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?

And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.

So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.

No, I wish to put a boot right in your Kunt. Gosh what does enabling the homeless mean Dazzler? Your response shows how fucking disingenuous that question of yours always was.

Besides criminalizing being on the streets, do you have any other solutions?

Yes, yes Kunt because "being on the streets" means you have to shit on the sidewalk and shoplift and do drugs in public. Fuck off Dazzler.

You brought up vagrancy, Madam.

Yeah, that was the only thing I mentioned. Fuck off.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

Doogles said:

HHusky said:

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.

Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved. (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.

Stop giving away millions of "free" needles. Off top no google like pump, SF spent over 50 million last year on cleaning up human feces.

You need to reopen mental health facilities, i like the idea of a tiered system. If people are cited enough, you take them out of society and evaluate where they are at. If they are insane you go from there, if they are showing rehabilitation you move them along to the next level, until you get them to a point to return to society.

The amount of money being spent on the homeless problem while it only gets worse is proof it's not working. Giving safe zones and encampments only encourages antisocial behavior while killing the value of surrounding property and business.

It may seem inhumane on the surface, but the faster people hit their bottom the better. They need to get wrecked to realize it's not working. Accept reality you can't save everyone.

The sad truth is a lot of people need to die so others can live. People are going to get blood born disease using dirty needles, clean needles, fucking for dope, etc. Enforcing consequences for actions shouldn't be viewed as a negative.

I was a pretty high bottom guy, functioning making 6-figs, but always on the verge of snapping. I hang out and help homeless, former homeless, pretty much everyday now for two years.

They would have all been happy hooked up to a slow drip, drooling out the side of their mouths for eternity if you let them. I used to give the bum begging for change fives all the time. I don't give them a cent anymore, i'll toss them food that's it. The stories i hear and the things i've seen have opened my eyes to the reality you need these people to fail spectacularly for them to change.

Societies current approach is akin to the classic story of the loving mother giving her obvious junkie son another 20, and another 20, and another 20, and where is the TV?, but he's a good boy so here's another 20...this is not a winning strategy and it hurts all parties involved in the most destructive, painful, and drawn out way imaginable.

Isn't the biggest problem with society's current approach the decentralization and lack of uniformity between approaches? As GreenRiver said, a single, federal approach would be better. As things stand, some cities "solve" the problem by buying the homeless bus tickets to Seattle and SF. And I am torn when I give to local homelessness charities, because there is a free rider issue; if some communities are charitable and others aren't, the ones that are will end up bearing more than their share of the burdens.

Imposing deadly consequences for addiction is a bridge too far for me. Addiction is not merely a behavioral issue. Clean needles are the bandaid you apply when treatment is too expensive and/or unavailable. I'd prefer we provided treatment. But it's spendy. Same with mental illness.

Remembers comrade, the wars on poverty never ends!

Actually, Jesus said something like that too. I quoted it above. Race told Him to fuck off.

Why must we atheists always do the Lord's work?

Deflect deflect deflect. If you were funnier I'd think you were one of J's alts attempting to mimic a bad attorney.