Seattle’s ongoing homeless crisis is surrounded by an absurd number of contradictions that if not addressed will only result in a continuation of this human tragedy. Leaders and supporters of the city’s current approach claim compassion, but have delivered heartlessness. When residents have been asked for and given more tax dollars, the result is only ever more homeless on the streets. Our city council continues with the same failed policies, yet anticipates different results. We elect the same politicians or ones cut from the same cloth, yet expect them to solve something they’ve failed at or made worse. And our councilors say they want more low cost housing, but adopt policies that only increase prices. This city needs change for our homeless to have hope.
There’s nothing compassionate about letting the homeless live on our sidewalks and in our parks; it’s heartless and uncaring. As Mayor Jenny Durkan has noted, every three days a homeless person dies in Seattle. The average life expectancy is about 50 years, around 30 years shorter than the general population.
These people need hope, but by leaving them in the streets, we’re letting Seligman’s “learned helplessness” set in. While animals are susceptible to learned helplessness on their own, humans can also learn it vicariously through others who have already developed it. In Seattle we’re compounding this problem by letting tent cities and tiny home villages flourish. Whether by experience or by the hopelessness that surrounds them, these poor souls are developing the belief that they are unable to lift themselves up, and that poverty and misery are their destiny.
The compassionate thing to do is insist that the homeless take our offers of shelter and assistance. We must stop learned helplessness from settling in before they develop it or learn it from others. Letting them say no and allowing them to stay on the streets is a heartless approach and Seattle needs to put an end to this policy.
Over the past dozen years, including the period when the city implemented it’s “Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness”, we’ve generously spent over half a billion dollars to solve this crisis. In recent years spending on homelessness has doubled, yet the numbers on our streets keep on climbing.
Our tax dollars have been spent with little or no accountability for the quality or results of the spending. Human-services providers that have received the contracts for outreach and treatment for the ills of the homeless have actively lobbied against performance targets and other metrics that would allow us to monitor which agencies have been getting good results and which haven’t. Our leaders have largely bent to their will. Similarly, providers have frustrated efforts for work to be competitively bid so that we know we’re getting the best services at the best rates.
Poor policy leads to poor outcomes. In most workplaces, people lose their jobs for results like this. Yet we re-elect the same people who’ve led us down this path or we elect others espousing the same policies. What is the matter with us?
We want houses people can afford to help solve the homeless crisis and so people from low paying professions can live in our city. On the other hand, we support unnecessary and burdensome regulations far and above what most other cities have adopted. Our 745 page building code and 685 page residential building code largely just make us feel good and virtuous, but as a University of Washington study found, they and other regulations literally add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of our homes. In other words, we want to have an affordable cake and we want to eat it too.
When it comes to rising rents, regulations are also to blame. Our city keeps piling them on to landlords as if they are costless. In the last year or so it has: forced landlords to pick the first applicant rather than allow them to select from amongst all applicants; required that they provide tenants guidance and information on registering to vote; and, removed their ability to conduct background checks. These might all be noble goals, but they are far from costless and they increase the risk and associated cost of renting.
Our elected officials need to change their approach or we need to change them. Before we support any further increased spending, we need to demand that our tax dollars are being spent well. As a city, we also need to decide between affordability and nobility. If we truly want less expensive housing, we need to make it less expensive to build or rent houses. This means removing unnecessary and costly regulations. And we need to stop being heartless to the homeless. To be compassionate, we need to give them hope, get them off our streets and into shelters with assistance, and stop them developing learned helplessness.
Related posts:
Time for some real change on homeless policies
Seattle’s sickening rape that could have been prevented
Tackling homelessness with Econ 101
Nick. I think most of what you say is relevant to Wellington. New Zealand. Here at least property owners can choose their tenants but costs are way too high Unlike the US building costs here are excessive. Combine this with constrictions on land the result is socially awful.
Well said, thank you. I’ve posted to FB. It articulates very well what I believe many of us who are “liberal” thinkers but moderate in our approach and want both compassion and a safe and sane city are thinking right now.
Regulating landlords isn’t increasing prices. Giving landlords some rules on how to manage existing properties is not a big deal. It would seem the bigger deal is the approval processes that mean new builds take years or even decades. Existing residents lose their minds when building density.
Well said. Though I’m a firm believer in freedom and liberty, a similar logic must be applied to the gravely mentally ill. Laws need to be changed, using specific and modern clinical and preferably biological measures of psychosis, to detain and care for those who are not able to adequately care for themselves. However, I think the majority of our issue is substance based. I hope we as a city can learn from our mistakes.
Yes, it well take some money to help relieve this problem, you are not going to solve it because it can not be completely solved. The major problem as I see it, is the people are not going to give this government more money because they are just throwing money at this problem without knowing what is really going to make it better, people know longer trust the government to do with the money what they say they are going to do with it, it always ends up going to something else instead of what the public thought it was going too, do I have the answer “NO”, but from watching what has gone on the government doesn’t either and until I think they do, my money is going to stay in”MY” pocket!!!!!