[seanmcdirmid]

Conservative policies can succeed if there is a progressive city just across Lake Washington. Why smash windows in a place where the police will harass you if you can be in a place where they don’t? Well, it works locally at least.

I see how treating underlying causes would help, but people are mobile, so doing it with local resources is never going to be a winner. So conservative solutions will show more effect locally than progressive ones, unfortunately, and local voters want to see improvement, not futility.

The other problem is that we are still conflating a drug crisis with a homeless crisis, the people busting your car window and stealing your Amazon packages are more likely in the former category even if they might be in the latter.

[kodah]

I agree, having broader agreement on how tackle these issues is key. We don't do that well right now and I suspect that strongly correlates to rivaling political parties in an age of divisiveness that cannot work together to formulate a cohesive plan.

I'll say this again, as I stated in another comment, there are different reasons for homelessness. Some people are just in a bad rut and need a stable place to go while they sort their lives out. This is the minimum order of difficulty; build damn shelters, and resource centers, and these folks will get help first.

The larger component of homelessness has mental health or drug issues and far more overlap with gang activity root causes. It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.

Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.

[seanmcdirmid]

It is true that there are different causes to homelessness, totally agree. But the person pilfering packages, looking for things in cars, or shoplifting at target, is not going to be your typical economic homeless case, their is already a selection beyond being homeless going on at that point.

> far more overlap with gang activity root causes

I have no idea why you are talking about gang activities in retaliation to homelessness, since we have plenty of homelessness in Seattle and virtually no gang activity. I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?

> It's worth trying to solve those together and taking an approach that instead of demonizing them for their choices/mistakes seeks to help them set their lives on a more stable path.

We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.

> Mental health related homelessness requires access to healthcare that can fund whatever they need to be on and courts that can recognize this is the case.

We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.

[_ktx2]

> I'm guessing that is more of a Californian thing?

I live in Portland, but yes, it is more of a Portland thing. The visible things that create opposition to our homelessness policies are:

- Store looting, which is mostly driven by a scheme developed by gangs. Gangs are often enlisting the homeless to carry out these stunts.

- Open air drug use, which requires drugs facilitated by gangs

- Property crime, which is either done by gangs or is incentivized by gang-related activity

"Organized crime" is probably a better term than "gang" here. Gangs are generally recruiting in places where opportunity is low and costs are averagely above peoples means. My point is that there's some overlap with homelessness and we'd benefit by looking at them equally empathetically.

> We really need to do both? The choices definitely need to be demonized, lest our kids think they are OK choices. My greatest fear would be my kid somehow makes these bad choices in the future because our schools taught him that these people were just victims of society rather than victims also of their choices.

What you've said here and what I've said are slightly different. Holding people accountable is important, yes. If they are unwilling to change their ways they should be held accountable. At the same time, when someone struggling with drugs or mental health says, "I want help" there's a short window of time where that help can be transformational. Once they've chosen to right their life, and demonstrated it, we need to provide them capacity to move on, which is where we fall short these days. If you've been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether you're homeless at the time or not, then it'll be difficult if not impossible for the person to gain and maintain meaningful employment that pays their bills in a capitalist society. This situation can put people right back into the cycle of drug use, homelessness, a mental health crisis, or all of the above. Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.

> We've found this to be problematic because cases will be misdiagnosed as mental health problems when they are really severe substance abuse problems (or the patient will say they don't have a substance abuse problem given the stigma associated with it), to predictable ineffectiveness.

I wouldn't call it problematic, I'd call it frustrating, because typically it's both. Again, addressing one problem ends up persisting both problems. I blame this, again, on policy that doesn't understand the systems it's up against.

[seanmcdirmid]

Oh, ya, there is definitely some organized crime mixed into it, and the fences for stolen goods need to be dealt with. But frankly, it doesn't require a lot of organization when the police are being so lack on their enforcement (mostly because they are understaffed, not because they are lazy or anything). Anyone can do property crime, and there are lots of avenues to convert booty into some cash.

> Mainly, what I'm saying is when someone has demonstrated reform we need to stop punishing them at some point.

Sure, but we aren't asking for that anymore. Its like...ok treatment, but if you don't take it, you still get to walk, so why bother? Jail isn't in the cards anymore unless you at least bash someone's head in, and even then its questionable. Also, our system now seems to be based on financial disincentives (e.g. you get your car towed if you park illegally) and that really doesn't matter to someone who has nothing to lose (e.g. the towing companies won't go near certain vehicles because they know they are never getting paid). We need to do everything possible, maybe throw most of our resources at, people getting to a point that they have nothing to do lose (e.g. make sure felons after jail/prison have a way forward that they don't want to lose).