Anyone that disagrees with the Seattle leftist talking points on crime, drugs, homelessness, public disorder, and policing is painted as a Republican. There are very few Republicans in Seattle. You seem to be missing the point that a growing number of people on the left that live in cities are also fed up the progressive agenda on these issues which obviously has failed. No matter how much Hannah and others try to spin it, the quality of life due to street disorder and crime has dropped dramatically on Capitol Hill and Seattle in general. The safety issues are real and many of them are a direct result of progressive ideology on these issues. We need a new approach which includes consequences for crime and anti-social activities and mandatory treatment.

@1 Those crises, though mischaracterized, are real. But progressive ideology does not cause their roots. Their roots are zoning and lack of rent control to make up for it and a lack of sufficient funding for housing to make up for the chasm and a lack of affordable or accessible healthcare for resulting substance use disorder, and a lack of support for disabled Americans who cant afford market rent here since 2013 even if receiving full social security disabiIity benefits (any many dont and must then resort to stealing etc)

Uh oh, look out Goodspaceguy!

Geez - yesterday (as I sat in the Capitol Hill light rail station at about 9pm) a woman sat next to me, while she was holding an open umbrella, and tousled my hair!
Sure, the city has some unusual folks, but what’s even more unusual is the idea of an actual Republican in Seattle. If the idea of a minority person holding a grocery bag is that upsetting, I don’t know how to help you. For Christ’s sake!

"If you’re this hesitant to ride public transportation in Seattle, then we have some serious work to do"

Yes, work on yourself. Get professional help to stop being such an irrationally fearful weirdo.

“We’re for housing,”
Savage told The Stranger.
“We're just not for drug-tolerant housing.”

then let's put an end to wine fridges*
everyone knows booze is thee
Most Dangerous Drug of all

and you can
Keep your
Home.

*& then there's
The Hard Stuff:
McNaughtons!
fer Chrissakes!

& whattabout Stoli!
Jagerfuckingmeister!

the Real scourge
is alcohol. just
say, "No."

'a minority person
holding a grocery bag'

there couldda been
ANYTHING in that
"innocuous" bag!

A smaller
minority
Person!

omfg
their ptsd's
gotta be OFF
the Charts, Pat_L !

but, Fortunately,
Nothing that binge-
watching FOX (for a Week!)
AT TIP TOP VOLUME cannot Fix.

WHAT!?

tbh, I was hoping to read more history of her in the article. Like what was her trajectory between birth and this week?

So just so we’re clear, this woman spoke to a political candidate about her lived experience in Seattle and because she didn’t say the right things TS devotes over 1000 words to a hit piece on her? Hopefully this does the job of silencing anyone else who dares to have an opinion contrary to what they are supposed to think or a woman who has concerns about being alone in the city. This is another new low for this publication. I can only imagine the outcry if someone has written about the damage someone like Paul Chapman is doing. I guess when they go low, we go lower is TS new focus.

@2: Thanks for nicely demonstrating why Seattle’s homeless response has failed so miserably. Seattle has experienced an influx of persons already homeless, often because of substance-abuse or other mental-health issues. The Stranger, and the politicians it has endorsed, has mischaracterized this crisis as one of housing-affordability amongst long-time locals. Treating a public-health crisis amongst recent arrivals as if it is a housing-affordability problem amongst locals has failed so badly, many homeless persons have died of overdoses on Seattle’s streets. (The Stranger deals with this tragic outcome via the simple expedient of ignoring it.)

Housing affordability is a real issue in Seattle, but it cannot, by itself, explain the size and composition of Seattle’s homeless population.

"Housing First" is such a dumb, bumper-sticker, statement. It's right up there with "Defund the Police". Is there a mole on the left who is secretly a Republican, and who makes up these dopey phrases?

"Housing First" makes it sound like they just shove people in facilities without assessment of what they need. And, judging by the disastrous Renton Red Light experiment, that may be the practice.

Oops, that should be the "disastrous Renton Red Lion experiment".

Mrs. Vel-DuRay regrets the error.

@11 oh look another regular commenter expressing a strong opinion on something they know nothing about. Ms. Vel-DuRay (and anyone else so inclined) is invited to educate herself regarding a decades old, evidence based policy that has been successfully enacted around the world:

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html

It's MRS Vel-DuRay dear. Please make a note of it.

I'm sorry I hurt your fee-fees by calling the phrase "Housing First" dopey. (I always forget how touchy Stranger staffers are these days, but it's been a long time since I was in High School). I've actually done some reading on the concept, and seen where there have been success, even here in Seattle. Indeed the national focus on reducing homelessness is following that principle. My irritation is with the bumper sticker/easily ridiculed term of "housing first". You have to look at every individual, and decided what sort of housing they need first and then place them there (and I'm not talking about "treatment first". Think of is as "assessment first"). Doing that reduces the chances of having former Red Lions being set on fire.

@14 well it's no "Make America Great Again" or "Where We Go One We Go All" I'll give you that. Then again I'm not sure we should be playing to the types of people who get really invested in catch phrases.

"Housing First" clearly and unambiguously expresses exactly what the policy does: get people housed first, then work on solving whatever issues they may have. And like I wrote this policy is evidence based and it works. So I disagree the policy or its name are "easily ridiculed" except by people who know nothing about it and don't want to, who again I'm not sure we should be playing to.

Panic and confusion at The Stranger's staff meeting as they discover at least half of Capitol Hill, their former home, no longer sees things as they do, and that they've evolved further and further leftward. And that weirdo alt people such as Ms. Savage now represent an evil Trumpist Other to them. Bad news folx. A majority of Seattle, and possibly even a majority of D3 - wants basic things like public safety and a lack of ongoing drug crime violent threat on our person. Does this make us all Trumpers too? The Progressives' Dilemma.

Alternatively we could go all in the other direction and call it "Remove Them From The Public And Worry About Their Problems Later" and dipshits like many of the commenters here would lap it up. I apologize Miss Vel-DuRay you may be on to something after all.

@15 housing first may work for people who are homeless but not suffering from other issues. As it turns out putting people with severe addiction and/or mental issues in housing without any type of support or supervision is ineffective for them and other homeless people trying to get on their feet.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-16/mayfair-hotel-was-beset-by-problems-when-it-was-homeless-housing

https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/06/07/a-28-million-low-income-apartment-complex-descends-into-chaos-in-just-two-and-a-half-years/

@18 ah shoot, better call Biden and the leaders of multiple other countries to let them know they're doing it all wrong. Nevermind the academic consensus D13 has two anecdotes from the news media!

@19 tl:dr I’ll just bury my head in the sand and cite random studies so I can pretend this is a one size fits all problem and ignore actual results that show different approaches may be needed in some cases.

@20 a thinking person might wonder why outliers are outliers. The Portland building was managed by a for-profit company that was from all accounts entirely unresponsive. The problem wasn't "housing first" it was a shitty management company--a problem by no means confined to low income housing.

The LA hotel wasn't even an example of "housing first" it was emergency shelter during the pandemic where drug use was prohibited.

I don't have my head in the sand your anecdotes just do not support your asserted point that housing first "may" work for people without other issues but is "ineffective" for people with addiction or mental health struggles. Your transparently went hunting for examples to support your preconceived belief, and you failed.

thirteen123 dear, sock puppets usually aren't so defensive. You need to hone your skills.

Here's the problem: The average person sees "the homeless" on TV or passed out on Third Ave, and then hears people like you speak piously about "housing first". Then they hear about stories like District13regugee shared, or the the issues we have had here. They don't know the nuances that you shared, they just see the whole thing as an expensive boondoggle that no one seems to be able to get a handle on.

Also, it really doesn't matter if it's emergency Covid housing or a "housing first" program, or whether a "shitty management company" (translation: lack of oversight) was involved. There is apparently a lack of assessment prior to placement, with the addicted and mentally ill being thrown in with the economically disadvantaged.

King County was still paying rent and utilities on the Renton Red Lion after they emptied everyone out of there after a resident set it on fire. Why couldn't they repair the damage (which was minor) and give it to King County Housing Authority to manage, and fill it with homeless that have been appropriately screened? Why can't we take a less from KCHA and SHA, who have been operating for decades with very little drama?

@22 what's your argument, that policymakers working to solve real problems should disregard research and comprehensive evidence in order to pander to people whose opinions are entirely based on select news stories? I don't think that's at all likely to result in effective solutions. Although it did result in the election of almost the entire current City Council, so there's that.

"....to pander to people whose opinions are entirely based on select news stories?"

Yes, dear. At least to a certain extent. Those people are the ones who have to look at the squalor, and - much more to the point - shell out the tax dollars to support programs and housing. And it doesn't seem like we're getting much for those tax dollars, except for a continuation of human misery. Also, there's a well-funded propaganda campaign to villianize the homeless. If you want to dismiss those voters/taxpayers and not mount a better defense than bumper sticker terms, that's your right - but remember what happened to the old City Council (I know that gets you upset dear, but the facts are the facts). That could very well happen to all of the social service levies if the people don't start seeing results.

@24 I dunno SPD do a shit job and they always get more money. I think you're dramatically overestimating the rationality of people opposed to helping fund housing, probably because you are one of them.

There's no reason to be pouty about the police, thirteen12 dear, and deflection is the epitome of defeat.

Here's the thing: You can cite studies until the cows come home, but you have to have some local success stories to back them up. And those stories are out there if you know where to look.

That's how sales work, dear. And you need to be a salesperson if you want to bring people to your side.

In sales you also need to know when to walk away from the table. People like Rachel Savage, you, D13 etc don't want to be persuaded you just want to confidently express your strongly held but uninformed opinions. And I like to make fun of you on the internet because my brain is also broken.

thirteen12 dear, instead of being pissy because we're not basking in your brilliance, why don't you stop and read what I am saying: There are "housing first" success stories, and one of them is right here in Seattle. You either don't know that, you can't make the connection, or you feel like you shouldn't have to, because you're so smart.

My point is that you can't just say "Hi everybody! thirteen12 here, Housing First!!!" and expect that to win over anyone. Most people don't read studies on homeless people for fun they only know what they see and what they hear in the media. You need examples and you need nuance. Sometimes, it is as simple as getting someone a roof over their head, and then they will engage in harm-reducing activities themselves (hint, hint). But you can't expect the public to think that you can take someone who is passed out in their own vomit on The Ave, put them in a motel room, and that they'll be ready for a job at Amazon in the morning. Everyone wants the homeless to have housing based on the individual, and what their condition. I assume that does play a role, and sometimes the people doing the assessment get it wrong, and things go sideways. In that situation, you need to know what happened and explain it, not just get self-defensive and make excuses.

And again, know your successes. Here's a hint to one of them: It's on Eastlake Avenue.