How Democratic mayors address homelessness is a balancing act of carrying out the demands of capital but wanting to seem really nice when doing it. Here's how the media assists them.
Just to be clear, when Adams and others say "homeless", they are only talking about the visibly unhoused. The others are out of sight and out of mind.
And all the talk of mental health counselors and crisis intervention seems designed to distract from the fact that the root problem of homelessness is lack of affordable housing.
This is a great article per usual, the one point that I would like to make as a father. We live in Seattle, my beloved city of 24yrs, regrettably there are large swaths of downtown in the daytime, that my wife will not go, by herself or with our young son. Civic and public safety to me outweigh concerns over sanitized language and squishy articles. Take a stroll down 3rd Ave in Seattle, open air dealing, use, ODs, violent assault. The status quo is unacceptable, obviously mental health, and addiction therapy needs are not being met. But it's near impossible to get funding for that, or sympathy from moderates when they see a beautiful city turned into a toilet. Empathy is hard to come by when people are literally afraid for their safety in a large number of areas. That said, love your writing Adam. Hopefully when I find a job I'll become a paid subscriber.
Many homeless folks are literally afraid of freezing to death or being assualted on the streets. But our elected leaders refuse to address the problem, insisting on undermining the safety of the homeless while casting their own actions as something else. It's unacceptable.
Im with you on preferring public safety over word games. But that's why what you said is fucked up. When we refer to public safety, homeless folks count as the public, too.
You're the moderate without sympathy Jeff. Why do you interpret markers of dispossession and vulnerability as markers of disease and violence? When you say we need more funding, its obvious you want more funding to keep 'homeless' people (people not pretty enough for you) off the streets, to keep poor people (people with few privileges or rights) from getting an unprescribed high, to keep vulnerable people (people with no options) from dealing with conflict without the state gang, to keep abused people (people who are targeted by the social order) from having autonomy while in a disabling state, to keep free people (people who dont live under obligation to capital-colonial society) from being able to survive without paying a landholder rent. How about funding to deal with the racialized anxieties that have you and your wife shunning half the town, that have you treating people like their problems are their problems even tho the reality is their problems are specifically problems of your own community.
If by "moderate" your definition is I pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes and expect to take my kid to a park and not have to do a sweep for needles? Yes I'm moderate, but my politics have nothing to do with what the city and county have allowed to happen here. "Pretty" people, that's neither here nor there. What I'm upset about are elementary schools not allowing recess because of attempted assaults on children. A 30yr running event canceled because "We're unable to promise the safety of the participants" there has always been an unhoused population in Seattle and surrounding industrial neighborhoods. Lived here going on 3decades, never a problem. I'm talking about allowing violent criminals to set up shop in broad daylight, assaults outside the courthouse, underage prostitution. Not a couple of old drunks looking for a bottle. Couple of weeks ago, an older lady was hit with a bat, middle of the city not 2am. Talking about the garbage, fires, and abandoned vehicles is an entire other issue. Not sure where you live xz, but here in the NW it's chaotic, not anxiety when you're watching people attacked in broad daylight. I'm not some pearl clutching bougie yuppie, just trying to have a society here
For several years, the MTA has sought legal authorization, from Albany, to ban individuals [after a determination by an administrative tribunal or local court] from entering MTA facilities---stations, trains, buses, depots, etc. Violating a ban would be a crime.
Just to be clear, when Adams and others say "homeless", they are only talking about the visibly unhoused. The others are out of sight and out of mind.
And all the talk of mental health counselors and crisis intervention seems designed to distract from the fact that the root problem of homelessness is lack of affordable housing.
This is a great article per usual, the one point that I would like to make as a father. We live in Seattle, my beloved city of 24yrs, regrettably there are large swaths of downtown in the daytime, that my wife will not go, by herself or with our young son. Civic and public safety to me outweigh concerns over sanitized language and squishy articles. Take a stroll down 3rd Ave in Seattle, open air dealing, use, ODs, violent assault. The status quo is unacceptable, obviously mental health, and addiction therapy needs are not being met. But it's near impossible to get funding for that, or sympathy from moderates when they see a beautiful city turned into a toilet. Empathy is hard to come by when people are literally afraid for their safety in a large number of areas. That said, love your writing Adam. Hopefully when I find a job I'll become a paid subscriber.
Many homeless folks are literally afraid of freezing to death or being assualted on the streets. But our elected leaders refuse to address the problem, insisting on undermining the safety of the homeless while casting their own actions as something else. It's unacceptable.
Im with you on preferring public safety over word games. But that's why what you said is fucked up. When we refer to public safety, homeless folks count as the public, too.
- a paying subscriber
You're the moderate without sympathy Jeff. Why do you interpret markers of dispossession and vulnerability as markers of disease and violence? When you say we need more funding, its obvious you want more funding to keep 'homeless' people (people not pretty enough for you) off the streets, to keep poor people (people with few privileges or rights) from getting an unprescribed high, to keep vulnerable people (people with no options) from dealing with conflict without the state gang, to keep abused people (people who are targeted by the social order) from having autonomy while in a disabling state, to keep free people (people who dont live under obligation to capital-colonial society) from being able to survive without paying a landholder rent. How about funding to deal with the racialized anxieties that have you and your wife shunning half the town, that have you treating people like their problems are their problems even tho the reality is their problems are specifically problems of your own community.
If by "moderate" your definition is I pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes and expect to take my kid to a park and not have to do a sweep for needles? Yes I'm moderate, but my politics have nothing to do with what the city and county have allowed to happen here. "Pretty" people, that's neither here nor there. What I'm upset about are elementary schools not allowing recess because of attempted assaults on children. A 30yr running event canceled because "We're unable to promise the safety of the participants" there has always been an unhoused population in Seattle and surrounding industrial neighborhoods. Lived here going on 3decades, never a problem. I'm talking about allowing violent criminals to set up shop in broad daylight, assaults outside the courthouse, underage prostitution. Not a couple of old drunks looking for a bottle. Couple of weeks ago, an older lady was hit with a bat, middle of the city not 2am. Talking about the garbage, fires, and abandoned vehicles is an entire other issue. Not sure where you live xz, but here in the NW it's chaotic, not anxiety when you're watching people attacked in broad daylight. I'm not some pearl clutching bougie yuppie, just trying to have a society here
For several years, the MTA has sought legal authorization, from Albany, to ban individuals [after a determination by an administrative tribunal or local court] from entering MTA facilities---stations, trains, buses, depots, etc. Violating a ban would be a crime.