Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dunpeal 2837 days ago
As a Seattle resident, what do you think of the argument that Amazon greatly contributed to homelessness in Seattle?

I read somewhere that Amazon's explosive growth raised the property values in Seattle, which in turn caused a surge in homelessness. Is that true?

5 comments

My 2 cents is that Amazon isn't a major cause. There's a few things going on(1):

- exploding drug addiction and related mental health issues

- Seattle does a remarkably crappy job of assigning the low income housing we build and/or contract for. Too many people get it who shouldn't qualify. Too many non-profits cherry pick their clients. Etc, etc.

- It's super hard to get coherent services out of the system. Which makes it self-selecting in the sense of concentrating the worst cases.

Amazon, to a certain degree, was/is part of running up the price of apartments and homes. Some homelessness is a consequence, but mostly that pushed people further (or totally out) of the area.

I'm not at all convinced that if we raise 2x the money, we'll spend it intelligently enough to make a difference here.

(1)My partner worked in the area homeless system and I'm getting a lot of my info from that.

> - exploding drug addiction and related mental health issues

I think cause and effect are backwards here. Low wages and high housing prices seem like they'd naturally lead to homelessness and rates of drug addiction and mental illness among the homeless, although very high compared to the general population, are nowhere near as high as people would like to think.

rates of drug addiction and mental illness among the homeless, although very high compared to the general population, are nowhere near as high as people would like to think.

Probably because nobody notices the clean, sane person living out of their car. We probably need better terminology, like functional vs. dysfunctional homeless, or something.

I feel like the reason it's so prevalent is less a question of terminology and more a question of absolution -- if, after all, the homeless have some immutable characteristic that makes them homeless, there's nothing society could have done for them.
We are talking about sentient people. Wages and housing prices may be an excuse, but they don't shove drugs down people's throats.

Mental illness - may be. But one needs to know if it's the cause, or simply an exposing factor.

I think these people are referring to those visible on the streets, and not living out of their car or in the shadows of homelessness. Oftentimes in Seattle the people who are visible are unfortunately in the worst shape, mentally or otherwise.
You don't have to be a drug addict to be homeless, the majority of homeless people are not, nor are the majority (or even a substantial minority) seriously mentally ill.
I don't think it's even controversial to say that people can turn to substance abuse due to adverse exogenous circumstances.
It is controversial by definition, because you just disagreed.
It's not controversial to say the sky is blue because you can turn up a couple people who say it is green. You've really never heard of people turning to drink or drugs because of, day, the death of a family member? You can't see why someone who sleeps rough might seek escape through psychoactive drugs?
> - exploding drug addiction and related mental health issues

Unless there's another reason we would expect mental health issues to increase I don't see why this would lead to more homelessness.

I also talked to one of the people in charge of a non profit for providing housing to the homeless and he was saying how the longer people stay homeless, the less likely it is that they will ever be able to integrate with society again.

I am much more inclined to believe homelessness is causing the mental health issues than vice versa. Or at least I don't see why Seattle's homeless problem would be caused by greater rates of mental illness than previously seen and compared to that of other cities.

As a fellow Seattle resident the arguments seem to break down this way: (From the left) 1) Amazon contributed to homelessness by increasing property values by paying too many engineers too much money 2) We don't have an income tax, so that increase in wealth does not come back to pay for services (From the right) 1) Enforcement of laws about sleeping in public spaces is very low so people feel comfortable being homeless here. 2) Increases of property taxes have increased rents leading people to not be able to afford rents (From both left and right) Housing developers are buying up as many cheap places as possible and turning them into high end houses that only the rich can afford muscling out people that could have both those cheaper places.

My take: If you isolate and fixated on one variable being the only cause of a problem, it's pretty easy to create a narrative, but the answer is probably more complicated and the solution is probably even more complicated.

What a bizarre world, when you're a villain for paying good wages.
It's a little tenuous to blame Amazon for this. Yes, the growth of Amazon raised demand, but the city's zoning laws are also to blame.

https://medium.com/@15kwhm2a/a-brief-history-of-seattles-ant... is very good. The Mises Institute has come to similar conclusions. When those guys and leftists agree, you gotta think there's something to it.

I recently moved away from Seattle but that seems correct to me.

I don't think the problem is REALLY Amazon's fault per se, since they are just paying people more than other companies in the area which I think most people would agree is a good thing.

I think the problem is more that we in the US treat housing as an investment which makes people more willing to pay higher prices and to borrow money to buy a house. When people see the housing prices increase then that further raises housing prices.

The issue is that housing prices, and subsequently rent, increasing is not a good thing for society. Even though the value of the house has changed, the house itself hasn't changed at all, and yet people now have less money to spend on other things. The only thing it really does is make banks and people who were already well off enough to buy a house wealthier.

Sadly I have no idea what we can do to solve this that isn't communist.

Homelessness is typically a mental health problem, not a property value problem
People always say this, but the problem is that it's not true. A majority of homeless people are not mentally ill.
This statement contradicts parent's. What is your source?
Here's one: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mentally-ill-homeless-201...

> A relatively small percentage of all homeless people nationwide — 13% to 15% — are mentally ill, but their symptoms — paranoia and delusions — draw attention and mislead others into thinking their numbers are greater, Culhane said.

> However, Los Angeles’ homeless population skews heavily to single adults who have lived in the streets a year or longer — a subgroup with a high incidence of mental health issues. Local authorities estimate that 30% of the county’s homeless people have serious mental illness.