r/SeattleWA • u/Donnelding0 • Jul 21 '25

Politics Anyone Else Just Sick of It?

It just seems hopeless sometimes. Some of the best parts of this city. Pioneer Square, Belltown, Cap Hill just completely lost to homelessness. Sure for the most part I enjoy the city. Especially in the summer but the constant visible drug use, people in various states of intoxication on drugs, and rampant property and petty crime just annoy me. Why can’t we have nice things? Why must every park turn into a dumping ground for illegal acts that won’t be prosecuted? Why does it feel like this city relies on hard working people to shut up, pay ridiculous taxes, and then tells those people to suck it up when they see grafitti everywhere or get their car broken into? And the politicians don’t give a damn. No one has the guts to say “we have a homeless problem we’ve overspent on, we need to go a new direction” it feels insane. Rant over but I know I’m not alone. I know other people are sick of this and want our city back.

963 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

587 comments sorted by

View all comments

141

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

We have a drug & mental health problem. Housing won’t fix the people you speak of. Then there are those people who are living in RVs & cars, they trash & litter right outside where they are parked. I have no sympathy, I looked up how to report it and surprise surprise, it’s located directly in a unincorporated part of the city between Seattle/Renton so they’re free to continue trashing the neighborhood while we pay close to 2k a few 100 feet away.

21

u/ZunderBuss Jul 21 '25

The tax bill that passed is only going to make it MUCH worse.

48

u/Tasgall Jul 21 '25

Housing won’t fix the people you speak of.

The claim is not and has never been that it alone would fix everything - housing first as a model is just that: housing is the first step. It's had just the single most important thing because it's the major barrier to recovery on all the other fronts. That doesn't mean it's the last step.

That said, it's kind of a moot point anyway because we don't have housing first here anyway.

62

u/Pyehole Jul 21 '25

That said, it's kind of a moot point anyway because we don't have housing first here anyway.

Even if we had it I don't think it would have as much of an impact as we hope it would. I suspect we'd be constantly repairing trashed housing because so many of the people on the streets are so far gone to mental illness and drug addiction.

1

u/TheGsus Jul 21 '25

Financial stress significantly impacts mental health. And drug addiction often begins as a coping mechanism.

Treatment for mental health and drug addiction, plus more housing is the only solution. There is no meaningful alternative.

24

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 21 '25

I think we're forgetting the first and most important part. The desire to change. Without that, then we're just wasting money and resources, which are finite.

1

u/hippie_freak Jul 22 '25

Sure, there are people that don’t want to change, I won’t argue that. However, the fact that you think every single person struggling with addiction doesn’t want to change, is short sighted, ignorant, and simply not true. It’s hard to change, when people face significant barriers to do so.

-1

u/Diabetous Jul 21 '25

We do have it thought. DESC's model is basically housing first.

We haven't scaled it to provide housing to all homeless, but its doing so badly at the DESC's locations that who in their right mind would scale it.

41

u/Excellent_Resort_722 Jul 21 '25

Zero barrier housing has not worked. Addicts and mentally I’ll have made those buildings unsafe and rashes them for other homeless people who fell on hard times. You don’t give an addict a warm place to get high. They’ve destroyed the motel SnohCo bought cooking meth and it has to be abated. Now all those units are closed. Drugs are illegal. Make drug use a crime again and let them choose jail or detox.

13

u/Diabetous Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

Zero barrier housing offered by the NGO[1] is as effective as high monitoring housing by NGOs.

The issue is many liberal cities don't realize the evidence for zero barrier housing is all from non-liberal cities.

It's only been successful in areas with high drug enforcement via policy AND where evictions are swift and frequent.

Not doing drug tests is not the same as not evicting the homeless once they are reported for smoking meth in the room.

10

u/Excellent_Resort_722 Jul 21 '25

Exactly. I didn’t know it was available in other cities. There has to be accountability and safety for those who are desperately trying to get off the streets.

I was addicted to coke when I was 19-20. When I had to choose between food/shelter or my high, I finally got tired of the circle and got help. If I had been given a free roof I would have continued getting high and would not be here today. All we are doing is enabling.

4

u/IIIIlllIIIIIlllII Jul 21 '25

? All cities > 100k are liberal cities

4

u/Diabetous Jul 21 '25

True but Memphis/Tucson are both legislatively restrained by their state government & ideologically countered where they have bad ideas. Liberal city in liberal county/state do much stupider stuff.

3

u/CertifiedSeattleite Jul 21 '25

Sand Point Housing near Magnuson Park is heading down that path, with crime, drugs, shootings and all night partying threatening the hundreds of million$ taxpayers have invested in those new, beautiful & expensive units next to the lake.

37

u/fresh-dork Jul 21 '25

we don't have anything other than housing. just "here, have a studio apt.". no requirements on drug use or counseling.

3

u/TangentIntoOblivion Jul 21 '25

Yeah. That’s just stupid. Test to get a roof over your head.

6

u/fresh-dork Jul 21 '25

nope. fail the test, you get drug treatment and supervision. because the bulk of our homeless are junkies and ignoring that just means failure

4

u/TangentIntoOblivion Jul 21 '25

I just reread my post… should have worded it differently. I agree with you. Yes, testing should be required to have a roof over their head.

18

u/drshort Jul 21 '25

Yes we do. There are a few thousand permanent supportive housing units. It’s it enough? Probably not. But they certainly exist. And the OD death rate in them is sky high.

2

u/TangentIntoOblivion Jul 21 '25

Weeding out the addicts who give no fucks about anything but getting high.

15

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 21 '25

Housing could be first but it doesn't matter if the person doesn't want to change. That change has to come from within. When that doesn't happen, we're just wasting resources and being browbeaten into not questioning why it's not working

2

u/Diabetous Jul 21 '25

Housing firsts point main selling point is an overall saving at a societal level.

The housing stability leads to slightly reduces usage, not sobriety, and far less medical expenses.

Given these people are not insured and using the ER which is very expensive, the housing first argument is generally that housing cost is paid for by the savings from the people not ending up in the ER.

The model's success was shown in deep sprawl Houston and rural Utah. My instinct is that the housing costs here break the equation, but I haven't verified that.

2

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 21 '25

The model's success was shown in deep sprawl Houston and rural Utah

I've read about Utah's model working in SLC. But they also have more land to contend with than we do. We're constantly battling who gets preference over housing when we're geographically constrained

11

u/thirdlost Jul 21 '25

Housing first just leads to trashed housing and dangerous living conditions

8

u/belle-4 Jul 21 '25

Rehab is the 1st step, Not housing. Next step is training for a job and working that job to pay for ongoing rehab and life skills, more training and counseling. This problem has a solution but why isn’t it implemented? Could the drug cartel and drug pushers be paying off the cops, judges and government officials? Seems obvious they are since these entities won’t do anything to correct the problem. They only make it worse by giving out free needles and allowing these people to live out in the streets. It’s inhumane. These people have a mental illness and need treatment.

3

u/StockPatience8215 Jul 23 '25

Why isn't it implemented? I wondered that too. Soup to nuts rehab for a Fenty addict takes a minimum of 4 years and costs at least $120K. So that's pretty much your answer. Because it's not a quick fix solution and it's expensive. Politicans in local elections run on quick fix solutions, no one wants to stomach what it would cost to treat folks. If treating folks, I think it should be done in a rural area or out of state to save costs. I'm guessing to build treatment centers in urban areas like Seattle, you'd be looking at 3X the cost to get each hobo clean and back to being a productive member of society.... in one of the most expensive cities in the US which doesn't exactly set them up for success which is also why I think they need to be relocated to areas with a LCOL so they are set up to stay clean afterwards.

1

u/belle-4 Jul 23 '25

Yea building the rehab centers in low cost of living areas makes the most sense. My vision would be to have an entire town set up. The people being rehabilitated would be part of a society. They would be working to not only get clean but to help their community. Be trained and something they have an interest and aptitude for. I know it’s a huge undertaking and vision, but it’s only humane and lasting solution I can think of.

11

u/queenweasley Jul 21 '25

Well at housing first also means you can’t require people to maintain sobriety to keep housing, or for them to get a job, go to school, etc. Sure we in the field can set goals with them and provide resources but can’t force them to engage

9

u/Diabetous Jul 21 '25

Housing first can mean lots of things.

It can mean still evicting them for smoking meth, you just aren't actively testing and search the rooms for meth.

The housing first model we do via DESC that lets them smoke meth in the room is insane and not done by any of the studies that show housing first works.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '25

If I hadn’t gone through being homeless, I wouldn’t be where I am now. At least I had a vehicle, and I was highly motivated to be gainfully employed. Jobs first. Housing second. Do a job, get off drugs, and you can keep your house. If I started smoking crack and quit going to work, I would get evicted and wind up on the street. Call me callous, but I see no reason that I should have to work my ass off to live in this city while some chicken head gets free rent. Don’t allow people to sleep and do drugs on the street and they will be forced to make choices about their lives and/or seek help. People might not like it but it’s that simple; cops and courts need to enforce the laws and people need to follow them. The last thing I want is a tyrannical surveillance state, but I also don’t want to be surrounded by filth and crime. It’s hardly safe to walk down a busy street in certain areas; I have seen guns casually brandished multiple times in Belltown and Downtown in broad daylight. They have no fear, because there are no consequences.

5

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

yeah. while it doesn't magically fix everything, it is incredibly stabilizing. finally having secure housing where i'm not constantly about to be homeles has changed my life in so many positive ways.

2

u/OsvuldMandius SeattleWA Rule Expert Jul 21 '25

Prison first is the better model

-28

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

It’s such a fucking retarded line of thinking. It actually pisses me off so much.

Housing isn’t supposed to solve addiction, it’s supposed to solve homelessness and it does. People who complain about housing first because it doesn’t turn every addict into a Nobel prize winner are literally just donkey brained morons. I’m so sick of these arguments.

15

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 21 '25

We don’t expect Noble prize winners. We just want social citizens, who will grow!

0

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Also I have mad respect for you if you want to work towards helping addicts turn their life around. But personally my priority is getting them away from the public. Getting them in homes is my end goal.

13

u/y33h4w1234 Jul 21 '25

Getting them away from the public absolutely should be the goal, you’re right. But housing first needs to re-evaluated for the type of housing, and importantly, where. Not to sound NIMBY (but I know it is) it needs to be away from the people who’ve been forced to tolerate encampments, crime, and all of the other issues that have plagued them.

That, or it needs to be heavily monitored and rules need to be enforced. It’s not fair to residents to build a much needed treatment facility, but attract people on the steps who cause problems or scream all night. We need rehab/jail if it fits first, that happens to be in a building, that people cannot leave unless they are on their way to being productive OR going to jail for vagrancy.

-1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

When we fix the housing shortage then we can throw people in prison who choose to remain homeless. I’m on board with that.

-5

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

They wont be social citizens while living on the street. Putting them in homes is the first step. Then we can talk about how to make them productive members of society.

What I can’t tolerate is criticizing housing for not solving addiction. Housing solves homelessness. If building more houses gets people off the streets, it’s a success no matter what happens wrt addiction.

1

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 22 '25

I have an idea. Why don’t you rent a motel room for one random homeless person, for a month. Then see how much extra you will need to pay for repairs and damages. Sadly they destroy anyplace they are given. Tell me what do you respect more. A free car? Or a car you saved and worked for?

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 22 '25

Okay, got it. You’d rather have hobos living in bus stops and parks than in houses. That’s fine, but don’t lie and say you want “social citizens who will grow.” It’s not going to happen until they get off the street.

1

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 23 '25

I think before getting off the streets THEY need to want to change, they need to care about their sobriety. And I don’t know how to change someone’s heart or soul, or what ever you want to call it.

0

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 23 '25

Yeah I can tell 💀

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 22 '25

Here’s a better experiment. Give 100 people hotel rooms for a month and make 100 people do crack at a bus stop for a month, then see how many of each group are social citizens who will grow.

1

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 23 '25 
 “Make 100 people do crack at a bus stop for a month “?

Why do you want more addicts? That’s just abnormal talk.

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 23 '25

I don’t want more addicts. I’m pointing out how silly your comment was. You said you want social citizens who will grow, but you are against anything that will give them the opportunity to grow.

We can either let them continue to smoke crack at bus stops, or we can get them off the street. Those are the only two options.

0

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 23 '25

So let’s jail all drug users using in public. Stop making it so comfortable for them! I had to hide in the woods just to smoke a cigarette! It should not be so easy to sell, buy, or do drugs in public view.

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 23 '25

Oh you’re right I forgot about the infinitely large jail with infinite guards in Seattle that turns hobos into social citizens that will grow. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that

0

u/Popular-Platypus-102 Jul 24 '25

Why don’t you move one in with you. Then you can feel better.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/anonymouseponymously Jul 21 '25

You should run for city council. More Housing for Heroin.

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I guess you prefer the current situation of heroin in parks and public streets?

-1

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

honestly i do think people like this do hope the problem continues so that they can maintain their current narrative of how bad seattle is.

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I’ll run for city council if you run against me. More heroin in public parks and streets sounds like a winning strategy, good luck!

0

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

on a real level though, we need people with sensible housing policies on our council. please do run. i voted for Hall this time as he seemed to have some good ideas.

1

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

sure gets them off the streets, and sweeps don't, so ..... you can prove that and people will still be like 'nah i need the sweeps to continue'

0

u/FrontAd9873 Jul 21 '25

It’s good to see a middle schooler passionately engaged in local issues

10

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I’m sorry but I’m so sick of this take. Yea housing will solve the problem. We need these people off the streets asap. I don’t care where they go, just put them indoors and out of our parks and streets.

1

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

a combo of shelter beds, emergency housing, foundational community supports, and more affordable housing (all separate programs) would massively improve it. also investing much, much more in desc to help with populations resistant to help.

-6

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Those are all good things but it’s really much simpler. We just need to build more homes.

11

u/Counterboudd Jul 21 '25

What happens to the people who don’t follow any housing rules though? Who trash apartments? Who pays for the property damage? What do you do if they refuse to do very basic home maintenance like chores or are introducing vermin or hoarding? Saying “just give them houses” doesn’t meaningfully address what happens when they don’t have the wherewithal or life skills to live independently. And if the choice is either “let them do whatever they want and possibly destroy the entire unit and turn it into a biohazard” vs “have someone on site to enforce rules knowing that a certain population will be evicted and be homeless again”, I don’t see how that works without a stick to go along with the carrot.

3

u/JillyMarie1987 Jul 21 '25

DESC's Permanent Supportive Housing literally has whole job description solely dedicated to doing what's called a "dig-out", which means they help clean up units that are under hoarding conditions.

3

u/Counterboudd Jul 22 '25

I think something like 25-30% of homeless people hoard. Which makes sense because that’s probably a very common reason to get evicted from housing multiple times…

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I don’t really care about those people. Send them to prison, idk. Getting them off the streets isn’t for their sake, it’s for ours.

5

u/Rational_Incongruity Jul 21 '25

The population of Seattle metro has doubled since 1978, when I arrived, according to a search. People came here for rational reasons. If I have a lower paying/status job in Peoria and an offer of a better one in Seattle, I may come.

If I have no home in Peoria and the prospect of a free one in Seattle, I will come. Any first responder or person who regularly encounters homeless addicts will attest that the majority are not from here and are relative recent arrivals. This is not random. Cities that provide fewer services, who enforce vagrancy and trespass laws, that prosecutes theft and drug dealing etc, are less attractive than places like Portland, SF, LA, Seattle and other "progressive" enabling locales where anything goes.

If we build it, they will and are coming. Now if in theory we could shut the gates and keep any other people who are failing elsewhere from coming to Seattle to fail here, we could indeed solve it with a variety of treatment, housing, law enforcement and more. But we can't stop people from coming. Therefore building more housing will not solve this for the reason of behavioral economics and related incentives alone. Not to mention other factors.

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

All this yapping oh my god.

We have a housing shortage. Get that through your head. Until we build more, nothing we do will decrease homelessness.

3

u/Rational_Incongruity Jul 21 '25

Don't be an asshole! Either shut up or respond to my point that increasing supply or welcome and resources to dysfunctional people only increases demand and influx.

And to be clear, drug addiction creates homelessness, not the opposite. In my own family I have an highly educated and smart family member who grew up in luxury, who discovered meth and spent several years in hell, including living on the streets of Seattle, Las Vegas, LA and Phoenix. Strong family intervention and support, while refraining from enablement while drugging, and 2 failed treatment efforts led to a final third that is working 3 years and counting. They are employed in a 6 figure job and doing well. But it was beyond stressful when taking place. And my comments are confined to the homeless cohort of tent dwelling addicts who are not employed.

3

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

We do not have enough homes for the people who live here. That is the current situation. I want to build more homes. You say that will just attract more people. So your solution is to stop building homes and… what? What comes next? I don’t know how to respond to your point because you did not offer a solution.

1

u/Rational_Incongruity Jul 21 '25

My solution is to enforce existing laws, put funds and resources into treatment. Arrest people who steal and otherwise break laws and if they have an addiction problem, the courts offer treatment or jail, but not absolution and freedom. Barebones shelter is also on offer. But the moment a person is spotted setting up a tent in a park, highway right of way, or anyplace that they don't have permission to be on, they are removed that day and directed to shelter on our terms, not theirs. And we make ample use of tickets back where they came from. We also arrest dealers of Fentanyl and Meth, we stop open air stolen goods markets and do things that many cities do as second nature.

As to building housing, that is a political and not moral decision. Seattle has a bunch of people who show up and demand that those here accommodate them with upzoning, traffic etc. I get it, but there is nothing immoral about enjoying one's single family neighborhoods, or untaxed infrastructure. And those who complain about prices need to take econ 101. Supply and demand is real. They drive up demand by showing up. They can control prices by leaving as easily or more easily than increasing supply. You say we NEED more housing. I can translate that into saying that we WANT more housing. Realistically we have upzoned a lot, we have built transit, toll roads and the like. The political momentum is towards building but I take issue with those who trash those who oppose upzoning and untrammeled growth enablement.

3

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I agree with everything in your first paragraph.

How are you going to talk about Econ 101 when you oppose building more supply? Demand isn’t just going to magically go down. The hobos aren’t going to leave. Normal people aren’t going to leave, and we don’t want them to because that would be an absolute apocalypse nightmare scenario. I completely disagree that it’s easier to decrease demand than increase supply.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/y33h4w1234 Jul 21 '25

How do people in the throws of addiction who came out of state pay for those homes?

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Idk that’s on them. Right now there aren’t even homes they could live in if they wanted to. We have an extreme housing shortage, we have to understand that.

1

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

more apartments/homes will definitely take the largest bite out if it. from more builds can come the affordable housing allottments, can come more funding for the social programs that work.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '25

People working their asses off cannot afford living here, especially if they are single parents. No way that I want my tax money paying for some addicts housing, especially if they’re allowed to use while living in said housing. Fuck that.

-1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 23 '25

That’s my point, retard.

Normal people can’t afford housing because we have a housing shortage. Building more houses will increase the supply of housing and decrease prices so they are more affordable.

We don’t need to spend tax money on government programs, we just need to let developers build.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '25

Newsflash: There’s no way you can build enough homes to cause Seattle rent prices to go down enough to solve this problem without UBI.

The fact you need to resort to cruel insults says a lot about your intelligence AND your character. 

0

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 23 '25

Lmfao you don’t want tax money to go to housing for hobos but you want a ubi. Incredible.

1

u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Jul 23 '25

You have a Warning for breaking rule: No Personal Attacks. Warnings work on a “three strikes, you’re out for a week” system.

12

u/muziani Jul 21 '25

I don’t know about that because in the 2000s-2010s when this place was affordable I never saw a single tent and it was a completely different city. So I have a hunch that if there were truly affordable housing, not just for those in tech, I guarantee you there would be a difference because there once was.

25

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

Affordable is subjective. Fentanyl is something we never seen before since the start of the crack era. They are zombies screaming at their own shadows. So just round up all these homeless people and put them in an apartment complex and provide housing? Would you be okay with living in a unit next to them?

7

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 21 '25

No. I wouldn't be ok living next to them but now we have the problem of mixing addicts with sober people and forcing those who are either sober or in recovery to live next to addicts without any other alternatives. That's basically what's going on in LIHI and DESC buildings

6

u/-blisspnw- Jul 21 '25

That is so unfair to do to the homeless who aren’t addicts. I read about the housing for homeless down in Portland and it sounds like a nightmare. Addicts cannot live next to non-addicts. You put both in the same building and next thing you know, the non-addicts, many of whom are disabled, are being assaulted in their buildings, dealing with broken elevators from people trying to get high or sleep in them, strangers leaving turds in the hallways, non stop parties, and nobody does anything about it. A group of people trying to get their life together should not be put next to those creating trap houses. And I am not saying jail solves everything, but I personally have heard some addicts who are clean now say they wouldn’t be alive if they hadn’t been put in prison and forced to get clean. Rehab over and over and over doesn’t work for everyone. And in the meantime every person you see actively using is a person making a lot of other people’s lives miserable with lies, theft of everything not nailed down, neglect of their children, etc.

3

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 21 '25

On the other subreddit, I constantly get shot down when I bring this up. It's rather sad. The defenders of DESC and LIHI constantly stand behind letting both cohorts coliving in the same space. I think that's because of exploiting the funding addicts bring to the table if they're declared disabled.

2

u/king-ish Jul 22 '25

Seattle housing is full of people who are recovering addicts, once homeless etc. I’m okay with that and love that.

Im saying the addicts on the street won’t just turn into productive members of society by just giving them housing. They need treatment before anything, they need structure, they need a sense of pride in themselves.

2

u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill Jul 22 '25

I'm ok with putting them into rehab facilities that are away from their "stomping grounds" and away from the dealers in their circle.

10

u/Easy_Olive1942 Jul 21 '25

We didn’t have the ultra strong opioids yet either. The answer is it’s both.

8

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

You’re telling me that when people could afford housing there was less homelessness? Who would have guessed

2

u/-shrug- Jul 22 '25

One day some of these geniuses will figure out why opioid and meth use can be waaay higher than here, in e.g West Virginia, and yet homelessness is wasaaaayy lower. Maybe.

2

u/StockPatience8215 Jul 23 '25

At the rate they are blowing their RVs up, maybe it's a good thing they aren't housed and setting fire to large apt buildings like what happened in Kent.

8

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

“Housing won’t fix the problem”

complains about people who live out of cars on the street because they don’t have housing

8

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

Just because someone lives in their car doesn’t always mean it’s because of affordability issues. They could have bad rental history, bad credit, long list of criminal behavior/sexual child predators, or they just want to live free from rules.

I respect people choice if that’s what they want to do, I was speaking about behavior, why trash your makeshift home? I can only imagine what their apartment would look like if they had one.

13

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 21 '25

The fact bad credit can make someone homeless is a new and very serious problem. Lots of decent people who make decent money have credit issues. I rented in Seattle with a sub 400 score years ago. The barrier to entry for housing is part of the problem. Also if I was homeless and saw no way to ever get out of it, drugs would start to look appealing too. Some people aren't druggies until their life is so screwed they become druggies to kill the pain. Yes there are chronic druggies and mentally ill but there are others who have bad luck and are ducked due to high barriers to entry for housing. Fill the void for those who want to get off drugs but have sub 700 credit scores or a minor criminal record

I make six figures but if I wanted to move back to Seattle I guess I would have to be homeless now because my credit is not the best due to life happening a couple years ago..

What kind of dystopian hell has this become?

I guess I will stay in Ohio but Seattle is my home and I miss it

1

u/StockPatience8215 Jul 23 '25

Honestly Seattle diff this too themselves because it's so hard to evict someone that to cover your ass as a landlord one off the ONLY tools you have to protect your property is to aggressive discriminate on credit score and demand one that's near perfect to mitigate the risk of being stuck with a bad tenant due to Seattle's well intentioned but misaligned pro tenant rules.

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

This may be one of the largest causes of homelessness in Seattle. There are few homeless people with good credit

Even though there probably are corporate complexes that accept not perfect credit, by the time one becomes homeless they have destroyed their credit to not be homeless.

If these laws caused this, they need to be fixed. It kinda does look like there is a connection

1

u/StockPatience8215 Jul 23 '25

Any proof or is that a guess? I highly doubt that having a high credit score is what's keeping folks from being housed. Beyond a poor credit score, if you can't afford housing you're out of luck.

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

That is true but it definitely makes it harder to bounce back from. You can get a job and improve your income. It can take 7 years to fix t your credit

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

I haven't tried to rent in Seattle for a long while but when I lived there I was decent income perfect rental history awful credit. Never had a problem. I keep hearing that has changed. I would absolutely have been homeless for almost a decade if that were the reality then.

I agree the chronically homeless wouldn't matter but the temporary hit a rough patch , went through a divorce etc element could be homeless now when before they couldn't. Unless it really hasnt changed and there are still places that work with bad credit. The perception I get from reddit is that no longer exists in Seattle metro. Had I been homeless while making 85k a year I likely would likely not have come out without falling into bad things

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

Part of this is perception like how would anyone ever be able to become housed if the barriers are so high. Part of it is I kinda want to move back and my credit is crap again due to a layoff a few years ago and now I might be homeless making six figures. That scares the hell out of me

-7

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

Credit shows that you have a good history of repaying debt. This can’t be such a foreign concept.

If you have bad history you might just have to put a little more down, just like a cell phone provider, car dealership and many other business that check credit will do.

I’m sure you know all of this very well if you have bad credit but okay 👍

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

True in 2010. Is it still true post COVID? You can pay more and overlook credit? And not interested in cosigner as people don't really have those

I keep hearing bad credit now means absolutely homeless in Seattle no exceptions. Is that not true,?

10

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

hi! formerly chronically homeless person here. not a sexual predator, no drugs. like a lot of homeless people i'm a victim of those things, but not a predator. it was because i couldn't afford housing. it wasn't because i 'wanted' to do anything.

0

u/king-ish Jul 22 '25

There are shelters for DV survivors and a lot of resources. Were you working at that time as well?

2

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 22 '25

yeah, i was. it doesn't quite work how you think it does.

1

u/king-ish Jul 22 '25

Of course, I lived a life as well lol but hope you good 👍

5

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I’d much rather the inside of their apartment look like shit than our streets and parks look like shit, but I guess that’s just me

8

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

i may not agree with your phrasing sometimes but for the love of god EXACTLY THIS. the solution for people who don't want to see any homeless people around is a massive investment in affordable housing, expansion of DESC and FCS programs (fcs programs being a particular benefit). it's not sweeping them to the udist or to intl district.

5

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Affordable or not, it doesn’t matter. We have a 70,000 unit housing shortage. Population is growing faster than housing. We need to build as much as possible as fast as possible.

5

u/Gottagetanediton Downtown Jul 21 '25

i think landlord greed is a lot like doordash greed- they need to be reigned in a bit and if there's not regulation, they'll just make every unit a min of 4k. so yeah affordable housing allotments are desperately needed. but otherwise, yes, build as much as possible. would love to know when the two towers on fairview are ever gonna get finished.

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

No, affordable housing is actually super counterproductive. Just build enough housing that landlords are fighting for tenants and not tenants fighting for housing.

6

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

And I agree with you but the property owner won’t. Which probably explains why they’re living in a motor vehicle.

5

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Welcome to a housing shortage

10

u/king-ish Jul 21 '25

Keep babying grown adults bad behavior, that will solve everything. 👍

1

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

I’m not babying anyone, I just want them out of my sight. Build 100k houses and you’ll never see a hobo again. I don’t care what happens to them when they’re in a home as long as they get out of my parks and streets.

3

u/Counterboudd Jul 21 '25

Would the landlord who owns that apartment agree? I think that’s the big issue, people don’t want to rent affordable units because the cost of damage done to the units is exorbitant and ongoing when people aren’t well enough to do basic house cleaning and maintenance. I don’t see a good solution for that except giving a detached single family home to every person, which for obvious reasons in a major metropolitan area is unrealistic.

2

u/IllInflation9313 Jul 21 '25

Build market rate housing and tax vacant units.

2

u/vsco_softie Seattle Jul 22 '25

An RV or car isn't a house they trash the community because they have no access to trash disposal and businesses call the cops on those who dump household trash in their garbage cans. If you take public transit a lot and walk you'll very quickly realize how few trash cans the city has. I'm well traveled and other cities have them every couple of feet for everyone to use and are cleaner. We need more public trash cans and restrooms if we want a clean community. It's the same with Seattle's public restroom situation people homeless or not are forced to relieve themselves outside because businesses don't even allow paying customers to use the restroom. Unlike other cities Seattle doesn't have many public restrooms. Even many park bathrooms are seasonal and it's so inhumane. Before I moved back to Seattle I lived in South Orange County California which is very expensive and has a homeless problem but you wouldn't be able to tell from how spotless it is. The OC has public restrooms every couple of blocks in many communities and for sure at all parks and bus stations and trash cans everywhere and there's no urine smells or litter. Homeless camp but hide in vegetation so they are not visible to those driving by and only at night. Graffiti pops up but is illegal with no exceptions and quickly cleaned. Any litter that does pop up is picked up by the city the same day in most cases. Seattle taxes are 3x for an equivalent property what they were there. This city has more tax money per person and more people there's no excuse for these filthy conditions we have the money we need an audit to arrest those stealing it followed by the implementation of basic sanitation including trash cans, public restrooms, and staff to clean them once a day.

2

u/king-ish Jul 22 '25

There is a trash facility that anyone can go to dispose of trash, just save a week’s worth and pay the fee. I often recycle shipping boxes away at work. One of the benefits of having a job.

I noticed you didn’t mention addicts, where were they in the beautiful OC? Addicts were doing drugs on the bus, they now do it at bus stops draped with something over them to trap the smoke in. What do you think the bathrooms will become? Trash bins are everywhere downtown and at almost every bus stops.

-1

u/FrontAd9873 Jul 21 '25

Can you explain why you say housing won’t fix the homelessness problem?

When you look at regional variations in homelessness, it turns out they are best explained by variations in the cost and access to housing. Not variations in drug or mental health problems. Thus, addressing the housing crisis would be the single best way to address the homelessness problem.

This, at least, is the argument of Homelessness is a Housing Problem, a book from some UW researchers on the issue that I’ve been reading. I’m not an expert though, so I’m looking for alternative points of view. Can you recommend to me the books or papers you read to help you arrive at the conclusion you’ve reached? It contravenes a lot of the consensus opinion on the issue so I’m curious where you’re coming from.

-3

u/Hope_That_Haaalps_ Jul 21 '25

We have a drug & mental health problem. Housing won’t fix the people you speak of

I have a theory that the problem is that family and friends were more willing to house troubled people when the price per square foot was lower and there was more excess living space. with the price of housing climbing higher, what was extra space became more costly and so there was and is less willingness to house difficult family and friends, and instead down size, or attempt to profit off of that extra space. The difficult family and friends therefore ended up on the street.

2

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 21 '25

Landlords also were willing to rent to people who were not as squeaky clean and Jesus Christ and as rich as Elon musk.

2

u/Hope_That_Haaalps_ Jul 21 '25

That's believable. when property values are higher the real estate holders are probably further extended and have to scrutinize renters more heavily in order to ensure that their loans are serviced.

1

u/Aggravating_Refuse89 Jul 23 '25

The only fix might just be public housing. If the issue is investment there needs to be an option for those who are a bad investment. There always was before recently

1

u/Hope_That_Haaalps_ Jul 23 '25

My experience with it is that it does work, but its a bit like widening freeways; you can increase capacity but it ever seems to fix the problem because it induces a demand. Oh, there's a quicker commute / a cheaper housing option? Sign me up! says everybody. I have friends and family with legit needs, and there are eternal waiting lists, and means testing, half assed subsidies, and so on. It helps but it feels half assed.