When I see numbers like this, I start to understand these 'no big government' and tax minimisation people.

I don't live in the US, and I've never been to Seattle, but if you can't 'solve' homelessness with 180 million, what's an extra 50 million going to do?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That money could be keeping tens of thousands of people off the streets and out of hospitals.

If we're throwing cliched adages around, don't throw good money after bad. People flock to places like SF and Seattle in part because they have all of this spending and infrastructure for the homeless.

Any evidence for that? I have a hard time believing people are moving to 'Rain City' to live outside.

We host the county jail and courthouse, and in many municipalities it's illegal to be homeless, so they get picked up there, jailed here, and released here.

If I were homeless I'd try to go to a place that helped homeless people.

You have no idea the scale of the problem here. It's not just a few people camping under an overpass. If you walk around Pioneer Square there are encampments on many of the blocks. There are encampments on Seattle anywhere there's grass. Drive on I5 through the city and you'll see encampments starting and ending at the city limits.

$230 million is a lot of money!

I'm not saying the problem isn't worth fixing - it definitely is! But Yikes, that sure does seem like a lot doesn't it.

180 million doesn't seem that much for a city like Seattle.

Even if it was the solution isn't to stop paying taxes and get rid of the government. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.