While I agree homelessness is a problem, it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure. Maybe it's time to finally get serious about treating mental health? Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'

You would have to make benefits conditional on satisfaction of mental health treatment compliance to get anywhere.

I think you could follow a carrot and stick approach to reduce the largest harms of homelessness. Get caught using drugs or alcohol in public, or harassing people? Jail, with deferment into a mental health program (which is also available to all homeless folks). Stay in the mental health program, and you get housed, for free at first, and then a small percent of your income once you get a job.

> it's a small financial burden compared to the unsustainable growth of infrastructure.

American cities aren't really growing their infrastructure that much (that's one of the problems), they are just maintaining what they already have. But ya, we will spend billions on a link from Ballard to West Seattle here, and it won't be ready until sometime after 2040.

> Whenever I see comments like this, I always note there doesn't seem to be any broader solution than 'ship them somewhere else and make them someone else's problem'

That's because while the problem is national, the resources expected to solve it are local. Since the problem is also mobile (as anyone taking a greyhound bus to Seattle could see), at least not being a preferred destination for the problem is a valid strategy. Shipping it off is also valid, but mostly the chronic homeless will go places where they can survive (looking for better weather, generous social services, and police that aren't going to throw them in jail for doing fent on the bus).

> So shipping it off somewhere else, or at least not being a preferred destination for the problem, is a valid strategy.

Is a valid local strategy. Not a national one. The cities are just responding as best they can to the brokenness of the national (lack of) response.

I'm not sure how that differs from my response, but sure. You can't really blame these places for dealing with it as best they could, and the cities that don't do that (Seattle) are only rewarded with an increasing share of the problem.

It only differs in a bit of emphasis. You're emphasizing that the local response is reasonable; I'm emphasizing that the national response is a catastrophic failure. (You said that "the problem is national"; I just thought that point was worth emphasizing more strongly than you did.)

I thought that was obvious, but sure. National problems can't be solved at the local level, so only national solutions should be seriously considered as having a chance. In the meantime, localities need to do what they need to do to survive.

100k/per year for homeless person? Do you realize that by giving that amount to most of them would get them OUT of the homelessness by next year (or sooner)? Yes there are the ones unable to get out of the pit, but most would. I would think if the measure of your services is how many homeless you support, then you'd increase the number of homeless,right? It's all KPIs and perfectly in the spirit of the OC.

I would pass law, average public spend per homeless can't exceed average public spend per public school student without annual public vote.

Let them explain, ever year, why your child is less deserving of the public investment.

That isn't true. The really bad cases will trash/burn down their housing in a few months of obtaining it without lots of live in resources to make that not happen (or renovate/rebuild after it does happen). If it were just housing, we could solve this problem more easily, but we have decided as a society to combine it with our drug abuse problem and have decided for some odd reason to treat the harder cases first and wait for the easier cases (just need housing) become hard cases (now addicted to drugs) before doing anything about it.

Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.

> Yes I get it, we shape our policies based on "the really bad cases". This reminds me of a - probably largely exaggerated - comparison: one party denies help to 10 persons out of worry one might be a fraud, the other gives help to 10 persons out of worry one might need it badly.

You are ignoring the 9 people they did help that way, but they didn't stay homeless for very long and aren't counted as chronically homeless. The one person that did burn down their hotel room is chronically homeless and very difficult to help...well, they are chronically homeless after all.

Not really exaggerated at all, I'm guessing you live in a nice suburb or somewhere without a chronic homelessness problem? Or you are just trying to gaslight us into thinking our property crime/drug problems aren't as extreme as we see them to be?

It would, but the homeless-industrial complex couldn't stand for that.

> per homeless person

Oh, I thought that by non-contributing you meant tax dodging millionaires that incentivise vast array of useless luxury services and extract undue rent from the populace through their various schemes.

Your average unemployed homeless person is dodging enormous amounts of taxes simply by not having an income. Do you also complain about them or is your bitterness simply a result of envy?

This reeks of being an outside observer. WA has no income tax, but has a sales taxes which homeless people are subjected to. The only taxes are from property which renters also don't pay. When people complain about the rent seekers it's from a place of empathy, not envy. The extraction of wealth done by them always has and always will be more negatively impactful than homeless folks.

Renters pay property taxes. I know I do.

You also pay for your landlord's vacations, and their food. And their drug and alcohol and gambling addictions.

You can't dodge something you don't owe. Homeless pay all taxes they owe. Mostly salea tax I imagine.

The vast majority of wealthy people who are commonly accused of not "paying their fair share" and of dodging taxes are simply structuring their financial lives in ways that allow them to reduce their tax obligations. Very few are engaged in actual tax evasion and all the rest pay all the taxes they owe.

Structuring by moving their wealth to Bahamas which is indeed fully legal because they are the ones writing same laws (or golfing with the authors) - something the homeless cannot. So this legal trick allows them to fully enjoy their wealthy status locally while paying close to zero taxes. While supporting the Bahamas economy, yay I guess.

And they get $100k/year of services. Their life is still not particularly good, but mismanagement can burn even the largest resource pile.

Christ. At that point just hand them the 100k. The addicts will quickly end the public problem and those who just needed a starting seed will emerge anew with at least a van to live in .

just burn the lazy and roast the rich then?