Will Socialism save Seattle? City advocates struggle to find solutions as homeless, drug addicts flood streets

   SEATTLE —King County hands out free drug pipes while open-air addiction overtakes public parks --- City advocates say they are struggling to find solutions as homelessness and open-air drug use spread across Seattle’s streets, amid growing concerns about the direction of socialist Mayor Katie Wilson’s new administration.  ----   According to Seattle.gov, in 2024, the city of Seattle spent $153.8 million on homelessness services through its Human Services Department.  ----  Read the current state of Seattle here -- https://www.foxnews.com/media/socialism-save-seattle-city-advocates-struggle-find-solutions-homeless-drug-addicts-flood-streets

Bitching about yet another place you live nowhere near?

 Reporting the facts about the socialistic problems in Seattle is not bitching - no matter where one lives. 

So when do you intend to start "reporting the facts"?

And yes indeedy, you're bitching. It's all you do!

I'm still trying to figure out how handing out clean needles and narcan equate to a governmental structure with a centrally planned command economy where the means of production are owned and controlled by the State. 

It's just the usual MAGA barf: everything they don't like is socialism. SOCIALISM! SOOOOOOOCIALISM!!!

The hilarious part is that they almost always don't understand what socialism even is or how it works. They certainly will soil their panties if told that there are many highly successful socialist countries, and that includes the US to a great extent. Their minds are back in the Cold War era, when the big baddies called themselves socialists (which they never were, of course).

Seattle is a social democracy. Resources are allocated for the common good according to the wishes of the voters, either directly (through initiatives and propositions) or indirectly (elected representatives). So whatever's happening in Seattle, it's what the people want.

I can't fathom someone who lives over a thousand miles away even caring about that, much less whining about it.

 I am sure that the residents in Seattle "want" drug addicts on the streets, in the cities, in the parks, and on the sidewalks shitting and shooting up while leaving used needles and misc drugs laying around.   Yeah, that is what they want, right Lewis?

If they wanted to completely prevent that, and were willing to allocate taxpayer money and city resources to do so, they would.

Similarly, they don't want traffic congestion, garbage on the streets, air pollution, crime, and all of the other negative aspects of being in a large city. So they allocate resources to solve those problems. It usually takes far too much money and effort to eliminate them altogether. So if those problems persist, it's not because the citizens "want" them; it's because they've decided that they can tolerate them.

The programs you are bitch bitch bitching about are a compromise between letting the problem get out of hand and spending too many of the taxpayers' finite resources on it. You don't like that?

Then move to Seattle and vote against it. Otherwise, it ain't your concern.

There, I've talked to you like you were a reasonable person. Make me regret it, as always. Be a jerkass in your reply.

I followed David's link to the article.  It was a good article, not a worthless meme or facebook post of screaming idiots.  The homeless problem in Seattle is indeed terrible.  I followed the link to the article and photos about the tiny houses, blocks of them sitting unused.  I'm not familiar enough with it, but it seems to me that efforts are peacemeal.  Many volunteers showing up to build tiny homes, but what about utilities?  Social/medical support?  Heat, water, sanitation?

About the allegation of distributing drug paraphanalia:  I've heard versions of that strategy for decades, have no idea if it has any value.  Like, if they are given a little their use won't escalate.  Right.   Distributing Narcan or other drug reversal agent?   Without appropriate and immediate followup that's sounds like a joke to me.   A shot of Narcan, the patient starts waking up, maybe.  Maybe goes back into a stupor or becomes combative, either scenario requiring medical intervention and more reversal agent.   Not to mention that effectiveness of the agent depends on the drug the person is unconscious from.  Reversal agents act differently on different drugs of overdose.   No good without medical support.

How much money is available?  How is it spent?  How much more is needed to address the problems?  You have good hearted people who want to help, but the people you want to help don't want the help that is offered.  That's a huge part of the problem.   

I wasn't in the thick of homeless programs where I worked, but I remember a veteran we had on dialysis, homeless, they got him into a nice residential care situation, his own room, kitchen, etc, paid his rent and utilities etc.  One condition, a curfew.  He had to be inside by 10:30 pm or something like that.  Another, no smoking inside.  He violated both conditions, evicted, actually left voluntarily 'cause he wasn't going to adhere to either.   That's the discouraging part, no cooperation from the ones you are trying to help.  They don't like the structure once they've been on their own 'successfully' even for a short time.  Addiction of course makes it worse.  

I'm sorry for Seattle.  What a beautiful city, which I'm sure it still is.  Just not in those areas where homelessness has taken over.

Candy

Candy, there are no areas where "homelessness has taken over." If such a place existed, everyone there would be homeless and without any resources or remedies, no?

The tiny homes do have the basic living amenities, such as utilities. There are indeed rules, as there should be in what is still a communal setting. And you're right, not every homeless person wants shelter badly enough to conform to those rules. I would expect that to reduce demand and enable the city to more easily offer shelter to those who do want it.

Both the Narcan and the drug paraphernalia programs were born out of people endlessly yeeping about the drain drug users were putting on the city's services. Those programs are marginally effective, but what do you do otherwise--round them all up and dump them in Puget Sound? Kill them (a solution preferred by many)? A one-way bus ticket to nowhere? People have a right to be where they want to be. I don't see any way to "fix" the problem without massively violating civil rights.

There is actually quite a lot of money available, because Seattle is a prosperous town and both the city and the state impose high taxes. It's just that there's too much push and pull (Washington has a fair number of MAGAs) and too many half measures.

But here's the primary reason why Seattle has a homeless problem in the first place. The weather, while often dismal, is almost never lethal. It rarely gets all that cold or all that hot. So living on the street is more possible than in cities elsewhere. Plus, it's kind of sprawling, but it has excellent public transportation. So there are lots of places for homeless people to try to exist. And yes, people are more compassionate than most, so there are rudimentary resources.

There really is no solution to the problem, except perhaps to make it somehow much less expensive and much easier to find a place to live. Homelessness, at its foundation, is caused by income disparities. The basic necessities of life should be affordable to all, and there should never be any people who make 10,000 times the average Joe's income.