LA has the same problem with its attempts to "solve" its homelessness problems, which are at their root zoning problems: http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-f...

A significant number of the homeless in LA (by some estimates as many as half) choose homelessness over shelter because almost all shelters in LA have sobriety requirements (meaning no drugs or alcohol).

There are hundreds of shelter beds in LA that stay empty each night because the homeless who would occupy those beds would rather pass out on the street to their drug of choice.

I also don't think that is the only issue with shelter usage. In Denver, a common complaint I hear is that they choose the street over the shelter because they feel both their physical safety and their personal belongings are more secure on the street. I also try to think about this from my own perspective and if I was in that situation, I'd rather find a "place of my own" on the street over a shelter shared by tons of people (unless it was really cold out).

I don't understand why people want corporations to behave like non-profits. It's a corporation whose sole aim is make profit. But that doesn't mean they can't do something for goodwill that actually benefits the community.

> In the case of their Linux support it's death by a thousand paper cuts.

What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community?

Because people act like they're altruistic and nice when the reality is that they're not. I'm not gonna suck your dick because you pulled a PR stunt, I don't swing that way.

>What does this have anything to do with them doing something good for the community?

On the surface level more support for linux is good thing, but like all corporate-developed software it eventually becomes bloated and unstable and dies a slow death.

Your Linux comment seems unrelated.

But of course, like I said, they should still help solve the problem monetarily.

Eastside cities’ residents want a certain degree of density, safety, cleanliness, etc. They also want to avoid losing the ability to have fast point-to-point on-demand transportation (i.e. driving private cars on roads that aren’t overcrowded), which enables them to live better lives by being able to quickly zip between work/schools/activities at a moment’s notice without dealing with the waiting times and schedules of mass transit.

That’s the lifestyle they have now and the lifestyle they want to sustain. I don’t think that should be demonized - people have different wants and needs, especially if they are raising children.

They also aren’t obligated to make their locale affordable to those who want to move there. After all, we are talking about one of the most desirable places to live, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that it is expensive as a result. Why should that necessitate a slide towards heavy urbanization? I realize some people prefer that denser life and might benefit from it (particularly if they are new transplants) but it’s not for everyone and I don’t think a community is obligated to make accommodations just because others now want to live in a particular location at a price point that makes sense for them. America has many places to live, and jobs are more available than they have ever been historically.

Lastly, cities surrounding Seattle also aren’t obligated to absorb the large homeless population Seattle has, which let’s face it, is enabled by lax enforcement of laws. A lot has been written (and is plainly observable) about the permanently homeless in Seattle who refuse all services and drug dealers operating out of roving RVs. For example take the recently swept Northgate homeless camp - an article I read stated that just one of that massive cluster of campers accepted services from the Seattle navigation team. And recently a lady was pricked by a needle at Northgate mall, not far from this camp. Is it really surprising that people in the Eastside don’t want to welcome the same squalor into their neighborhoods?

I'll also get this out of the way: yes, lots of us in Seattle are well and truly tired of the unsanctioned camps at places like Northgate and the RVs parked everywhere. What we're NOT willing to do, at least not yet, is to slam those people with more arrests and more trips through the criminal enforcement system prior to having services in place that will cover a high percentage of needs. (No, our existing shelter system, whether within Seattle or without in the suburbs, does not meet this requirement.) That's mostly humanity but also because the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that it is unconstitutional to run someone off from a place to sleep if there are no alternatives and "you must be stone-cold sober in order to enter this shelter" doesn't work for people who are addicted. (That's one reason why the region needs places like needle exchanges and substance abuse centers. Why shouldn't we concentrate them all in Pioneer Square? Well, for one, because the "junkie homeless" are already in places like Bellevue, sleeping out of their cars and scrounging for food, but they camouflage it better.)

Now, as to my original rebuttal. There's a huge need for missing-middle housing in this region. You know, for the people that serve your coffee, deliver your groceries, educate your kids, clean your parks, and paint the lines on those untrammeled roads. The people making well under six figures who shouldn't have to drive for two hours or live beyond the reach of public transit just to get to a job where someone making five times their salary can look down on them for not living in a "good place." That's the kind of housing Microsoft proposes to kick into gear here.

We need all kinds of these services because it's humane and it's fiscally and economically prudent to not sprawl all the way from Bremerton to the Tri-Cities.

Frankly, you just sound uninformed here.

Look at the Northgate encampment — 100% were offered services, 90% rejected them to remain dangerous vagrants spreading disease.

Until you accept that a component here is willful vagrancy and criminality, the problem will get worse.

No amount of money can fix your denial of the problem, and your position isn’t one of compassion — it’s an abdication of any responsibility: in blindly throwing money while abandoning the rule of law, you’re not helping the vagrants, you’re not helping the non-vagrant homeless the vagrants prey on, and you’re not helping the regular citizens that are getting assaulted or stuck with needles (such as that lady at a Northgate).

You’re the problem.

I want you to answer me honestly: when I was homeless, did I deserve to be assaulted by other homeless people while the police refused to do anything because you personally feel bad a vagrant might get arrested?

That’s the system you’re advocating for.

And it’s the definition of immoral baizuo policy.

LA has the same problem -- for a lot of the homeless, it's a wilful choice to remain on the streets.

I think most of us don't want this to become a place where normal, non-insanely rich people can live.

For whatever inaction the typical eastsider(sorry, I love you all) are commited to, its great that someone, even Microsoft is doing Something.

Actually the working title of the next one is Max Max the Wasteland.

But it might not get made anytime soon.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4575512/

You left out the part where y'all scream and cry nonstop about the 520 tolls, toss massive amounts of cash at fighting the potential I-90 tolls, hold up and stall mass transit (mostly via the massive stacks of cash mentioned previously) that could _potentially_ travel over these routes and bring "bad" people to your utopias, oh – and also want to host an NBA team.

You don't get both. The eastside wants all of the perks of being a large(r) city, with none of the less desirable components. Meanwhile, you travel over the bridges you attempt to regulate so heavily, into our city, to collect your paychecks and claim the name 'Seattle' (because nobody knows the name of your city) and then spend your evenings writing nonsense like this.

The eastside is trash.

Doesn’t everyone? Who actually wants the less desirable components?

Legal or not (and it is becoming less legal in places like California), it's a shitty thing to do.

I'm not in principle against low income people living on the Eastside. In fact, I think most of Bellevue, Kirkland, and the area surrounding the Bel-Red corridor should be upzoned and get more infrastructure - then low income people could actually live there

This seems to be a major part about why many people who are advocates for the poor have an issue with new construction - because it results in displacement of people who can't afford it

So it's making the wealthy pay the price for the zoning policies and real-estate speculation they created.

I'm not sure if road expansion is voted down or some other issue, but I'm glad there's no growth until then, as there are some pretty terrible traffic conditions in the area.