Page 20 of 31 FirstFirst ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 760
  1. #476
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    31,218
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    Umm....not really.
    Yes it has.

    .... property value, loss of business, police time.... that's not the same as just give them all $91k a year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  2. #477
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    where are you getting 91K from, a recent colonoscopy?
    I thought the 91k came from the Denver article, but I think he just divided the amount spent by the estimated number of homeless people to get the figure and then ran with it.

    I dont think hes considering that the budget likely includes the cost of housing people that were/would be homeless that arent counted as homeless because they are currently housed..

  3. #478
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    where are you getting 91K from, a recent colonoscopy?
    $1.06B per year spent in Seattle on the homelessness problem divided by 11,634 individuals = $91,112 per individual, annually. That was what jumped out at me in the first article I posted, followed by the bizjournal investigation. No, not pulled out of my ass. Thanks for the smart ass attack, though....

    Also, addressing your later post, the total expense, including lost opportunity and real estate valuations, etc. is $1.06B with nearly $750M going through non-profits, not the City budget. It's total. The question remains, with that kind of money flowing, and it's real on an annual basis, what are the resulting benefits? I think the biz journal article addresses that relatively well. And as for someone saying that's a fictitious number, prove it wrong.

  4. #479
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mtngirl79 View Post
    I thought the 91k came from the Denver article, but I think he just divided the amount spent by the estimated number of homeless people to get the figure and then ran with it.

    I dont think hes considering that the budget likely includes the cost of housing people that were/would be homeless that arent counted as homeless because they are currently housed..
    The Denver article is what caught my attention but was apparently in reference to the biz journal article. Again, the important number and point of the biz journal article is the $750M through non-profits without coordinated management or accountability. I don't think that accounts for those no longer homeless, although I may be mistaken on that point. If so, then the article should clarify. I'll go back and look.

    From that article, this is what I'm getting at with my point:

    "Homelessness is not a resource problem, experts say. It’s a communication problem.
    The landmark Pathways Home report released last year highlighted the lack of coordination between groups and governments as a major challenge for the Puget Sound region.


    Making the system more efficient would not only save hundreds of millions of dollars. It would also save lives. Ninety-one homeless people died in King County last year, and the region’s opioid crisis — the cause of many such deaths — is only getting worse."

    Again, the assumed solution by many in the area is to tax more and throw more money at the problem. I don't think that's responsible. There needs to be better coordination and oversight in order to more effectively spend the money in more meaningful ways to help alleviate the problem. That's my point.

  5. #480
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    6,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    There's no fucking hope to escape the rat race. There's no mechanism to show people how to climb out of it.
    When you get that mechanism figured out, I want to register for the pilot version of that course.

    Why don't the homeless just come out to North Bend? We had a developer in town swear up and down in front of council that they were going to build apartments that would be affordable for the people employed in the greater North Bend area, that they were geared toward working class incomes, etc.

    The first building is leasing now, and you can get a sweet "affordable" 2 bed/2 bath place for $2850/month. And we still have residents bitching and moaning about the fact that apartment buildings will bring in more riff-raff and undesirables.
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  6. #481
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,815




    Above is the actual funding for homelessness in King County in 2017 and where it was spent, but sure go ahead and lump in a hypothetical $750-800+ Million in business losses as money spent addresing the problem and then lament how it's not doing any good.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  7. #482
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    I don't think that accounts for those no longer homeless, although I may be mistaken on that point. If so, then the article should clarify. I'll go back and look.
    Why wouldnt housing homeless people be part of the money spent on homelessness?

    And those housed people wouldnt be counted as homeless...

  8. #483
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Mofro, you're letting your predisposed opinion of me get in the way of the facts presented in the biz journal article. In that article, the cost of non-profit, direct aid to the homeless was $746M. The $195M you provided adds to that total and the balance is probably related to lost business (a whopping $5.7M...whoopee doo) and other tangential costs. READ THE ARTICLE, then dispute it.

  9. #484
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    21,857
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    And we still have residents bitching and moaning about the fact that apartment buildings will bring in more riff-raff and undesirables.
    Where did you live again?
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  10. #485
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    6,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Where did you live again?

    You mean before Washington? Where the beer flows like wine, and where there are legitimately good social services for the less fortunate. However, those sort of services are comparatively easy to provide when you consider the population size and tax base of the area.
    I remember a bottomless freedom...

  11. #486
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mtngirl79 View Post
    Why wouldnt housing homeless people be part of the money spent on homelessness?

    And those housed people wouldnt be counted as homeless...
    It appears that these costs are part of the total, based on Mofro's graphic. There are probably similar costs included in the non-profit expenditures but not highlighted.

  12. #487
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    31,218
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    Why don't the homeless just come out to North Bend? We had a developer in town swear up and down in front of council that they were going to build apartments that would be affordable for the people employed in the greater North Bend area
    Population of North Bend is ~6K

    Not really going to to absorb the homeless population of Seattle with jobs in the North Bend area.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  13. #488
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    12,582
    Seems there is room for the .01% to step it up. What is the hurdle?
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  14. #489
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    It appears that these costs are part of the total, based on Mofro's graphic. There are probably similar costs included in the non-profit expenditures but not highlighted.
    So those costs are not being spent on current homeless people.. only those that would be homeless without assistance.

    Thus your 91,000 figure is bullshit.

  15. #490
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mtngirl79 View Post
    So those costs are not being spent on current homeless people.. only those that would be homeless without assistance.

    Thus your 91,000 figure is bullshit.
    If their homes, which are probably, by definition, temporary public housing, are provided by tax dollars then they are temporarily housed homeless. Semantics.

    It's interesting, you would think that part of what homeless advocates want is to draw more attention to this problem in order to gain more engagement in finding and funding solutions. Yet, you go on the attack when some does get their eyes on it and asks questions. To that, I say have a nice life. I'll disengage from this thread. If you don't find people in total lockstep with your views, you attack. Doesn't really matter that much to me, let Seattle swim in their own shit created by this crisis. Fuck it.

  16. #491
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    You are throwing around a ridiculous, untrue number likely to make people say more funding is not needed.

  17. #492
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    31,218
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    and asks questions.
    About the PS Business Journal's motivations and methods....?

    lost opportunity and real estate valuations
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  18. #493
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    12,582
    Based on the 10 years of living trail side, there are considerably fewer homeless/needy/sick folks living in the surrounding forests. NB tossed the homeless out of the squatter camps and they moved to the city for opportunity is my guess. Tent City 4 at High Point seems to be growing.
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  19. #494
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    About the PS Business Journal's motivations and methods....?
    Find a similarly comprehensive investigation and study that contradicts their article then. Usually, when someone can't do that, they throw out the old 'consider the source' argument. Back it up with contrary statistics.

    Mtngrl - Show me numbers that align with what you think is being spent individually. Maybe it's not $91k but it's probably not a lot less than that.

  20. #495
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    Find a similarly comprehensive investigation and study that contradicts their article then. Usually, when someone can't do that, they throw out the old 'consider the source' argument. Back it up with contrary statistics.

    Mtngrl - Show me numbers that align with what you think is being spent individually. Maybe it's not $91k but it's probably not a lot less than that.
    Ok.

    This is San Francisco, but I imagine Seattle is similar.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...php?psid=4Ayyw



    ....And that’s obscene, they righteously add. The average asking rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is about $3,300. If you multiply by 12 months, it’s less than $40,672! (Not by much, mind you.) Clearly, these mathematicians point out, City Hall officials are stupid or corrupt.

    Hey, I’m a taxpayer living in San Francisco. And moreover, I’m a journalist covering City Hall who loves unearthing foolishness or wrongdoing on the part of politicians. If this math held up, I’d be the first to let you know. But it doesn’t.

    “That’s a ridiculous number,” said Jeff Kositsky, director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. “If that was the case, I should definitely not have a job.”


    So what’s the correct number? Last year’s $305 million total included some small amounts spent by other departments, but was composed mostly of the $250 million spent by Kositsky’s department. He provided a breakdown of his spending last year, and the proportions are expected to be about the same for this year, when he’ll have $285 million.



    Of the $250 million he spent last year, two-thirds went to people who aren’t homeless at all. That’s the amount spent on rental subsidies, eviction prevention and permanent supportive housing. Those are great causes, but they’re aimed at preventing people from becoming homeless or to house the formerly homeless.

    Take away 11 percent for administrative costs and one-time capital spending, and you’re left with 17.6 percent spent on temporary shelters, 3.2 percent on street outreach and 2.2 percent on health services. That means about $57 million was spent on the visible homeless population, the group of people we see every day who so clearly need help.

    And that pot isn’t just divided by 7,499. That was the city’s homeless population on one random night. Over the course of a year, 20,000 people will be homeless in San Francisco, Kositsky said, adding that 5,000 of those won’t use city services because they figure out their own housing arrangements or are just passing through.

    But divide $57 million by 15,000 homeless people who need city help each year, and you see the city spends $3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day. An outlandish figure? I don’t think so....

  21. #496
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    5,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mtngirl79 View Post
    Ok.

    This is San Francisco, but I imagine Seattle is similar.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...php?psid=4Ayyw
    Great! Good job unearthing a relevant argument. The overlying problem with this, though, is that it only accounts for the money spent on homeless through the City coffers. It doesn't account for whatever other money is spent via private non-profits or other agencies. That's the point I have with the Seattle numbers. As Mofro posted, the City and King County spend nearly $200M which includes some funding directed to non-profits. The non-profits spend $746M in addition to the 200. So, as with the Seattle argument, the SF argument fails in that the city may only spend $3,800 per person, the total amount spent per person is likely much, much higher.

    I get it, as taxpayers, SF residents aren't spending that much per person but it still doesn't account for how much money is being spent per person. Likely, not even close, as is the case in the Seattle comparison.

  22. #497
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Land of Subdued Excitement
    Posts
    5,449
    I'm confused... are you suggesting that other funding sources, like federal programs and nonprofits are covering the over 80k differences in the numbers you are quoting or perhaps you think Seattle spends way more on the homeless than San Francisco?

  23. #498
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    11,484
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    Seattle's homeless problem really has nothing to do with "overpopulation"
    Really?

    Bullshit. If there still existed hospitable unsettled land this problem ceases to exist. People are just doing whatever they have to do to survive, itís the least inhospitable situation they can access.

  24. #499
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    31,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy View Post
    Really?

    Bullshit. If there still existed hospitable unsettled land this problem ceases to exist. People are just doing whatever they have to do to survive, itís the least inhospitable situation they can access.
    So we've gone from boot strapping would work to full on homesteading?
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  25. #500
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    11,034
    Looking at a map of the Seattle area, could the homeless problem just be solved by moving the homeless to Orca Island?
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •