Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Kath]

But housing will be more affordable, so there's that.

[DBTrek]

Starbucks drops the truth bomb:

...Starbucks was scathing Tuesday in its criticism of the Seattle City Council, which on Monday unanimously passed a controversial tax on big businesses to help fund affordable housing and fight homelessness.

"This City continues to spend without reforming and fail without accountability, while ignoring the plight of hundreds of children sleeping outside. If they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a five year-old child, no one believes they will be able to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction. This City pays more attention to the desires of the owners of illegally parked RVs than families seeking emergency shelter," John Kelly, senior vice president, Global Public Affairs & Social Impact at Starbucks, said in a statement.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/co ... index.html

[C-Mag]

[ooky]

I know Silicon Valley businesses were watching this very closely. I don't know what the best solution is, but something has to be done around here too. Housing costs are so high it is very hard to hire people for staff level positions because they can't afford to live here, and it's negatively affecting all business that don't pay Google level salaries.

Disturbingly, there has been a huge increase in homeless here as well in the past 5 years. I work in public areas a lot and so have a pretty good pulse on the encampments, because they represent significant safety hazards for us. Many have ended up in riparian corridors, which they are literally destroying. It's not for the water, its for the cover and relative isolation from the public, but more and more cities are moving them out - they just go to some creek corridor elsewhere so it is basically whack a mole. But it's so much worse now, I'm talking exposure to meth smoke, lots of human feces, attack dogs, firearms and knives ("I was looking for someone else!" said a homeless guy after nearly stabbing me a few months ago, which I guess was reassuring). The cake lately has been booby traps, they dig holes and put sharpened spikes in the bottom, like Viet Nam.

We need to get these people under roofs, somehow. Especially the kids and families. But even if the compassion based argument doesn't hold water with voters, the conditions are getting so much worse so quickly it's affecting everyone, water quality, riparian habitat, etc. Now we have municipalities paying huge amounts of money to restore these creeks, and if nothing gets fixed they'll just get destroyed again.

[nmoore63]

I know Silicon Valley businesses were watching this very closely. I don't know what the best solution is, but something has to be done around here too. Housing costs are so high it is very hard to hire people for staff level positions because they can't afford to live here, and it's negatively affecting all business that don't pay Google level salaries.

Disturbingly, there has been a huge increase in homeless here as well in the past 5 years. I work in public areas a lot and so have a pretty good pulse on the encampments, because they represent significant safety hazards for us. Many have ended up in riparian corridors, which they are literally destroying. It's not for the water, its for the cover and relative isolation from the public, but more and more cities are moving them out - they just go to some creek corridor elsewhere so it is basically whack a mole. But it's so much worse now, I'm talking exposure to meth smoke, lots of human feces, attack dogs, firearms and knives ("I was looking for someone else!" said a homeless guy after nearly stabbing me a few months ago, which I guess was reassuring). The cake lately has been booby traps, they dig holes and put sharpened spikes in the bottom, like Viet Nam.

We need to get these people under roofs, somehow. Especially the kids and families. But even if the compassion based argument doesn't hold water with voters, the conditions are getting so much worse so quickly it's affecting everyone, water quality, riparian habitat, etc. Now we have municipalities paying huge amounts of money to restore these creeks, and if nothing gets fixed they'll just get destroyed again.

So the solution is to have governmental policy increase robotic employment's competitive advantage versus humans?

[DBTrek]

Seattle spent a billion unaccountable tax dollars on the homeless issue over ten years. The problem only ballooned. Now they’re taking millions more, once again, without requiring any accountability from themselves.

You and I may not know what the solution is, but we can clearly see what it ISN’T - giving an unaccountable government endless revenue to squander.

Here’s an idea - let’s look at our laws governing drugs and homelessness and apply the same rationale to them that we do to feeding seagulls at the beach. I suspect if we quit throwing “bread crumbs” on the ground, they’ll move on.

[Ex-California]

I know Silicon Valley businesses were watching this very closely. I don't know what the best solution is, but something has to be done around here too. Housing costs are so high it is very hard to hire people for staff level positions because they can't afford to live here, and it's negatively affecting all business that don't pay Google level salaries.

Disturbingly, there has been a huge increase in homeless here as well in the past 5 years. I work in public areas a lot and so have a pretty good pulse on the encampments, because they represent significant safety hazards for us. Many have ended up in riparian corridors, which they are literally destroying. It's not for the water, its for the cover and relative isolation from the public, but more and more cities are moving them out - they just go to some creek corridor elsewhere so it is basically whack a mole. But it's so much worse now, I'm talking exposure to meth smoke, lots of human feces, attack dogs, firearms and knives ("I was looking for someone else!" said a homeless guy after nearly stabbing me a few months ago, which I guess was reassuring). The cake lately has been booby traps, they dig holes and put sharpened spikes in the bottom, like Viet Nam.

We need to get these people under roofs, somehow. Especially the kids and families. But even if the compassion based argument doesn't hold water with voters, the conditions are getting so much worse so quickly it's affecting everyone, water quality, riparian habitat, etc. Now we have municipalities paying huge amounts of money to restore these creeks, and if nothing gets fixed they'll just get destroyed again.

The Santa Cruz homeless problem and high Bay Area housing costs are barely related. The Santa Cruz City Council has basically invited in the homeless and now we're seeing it ruin the whole county. Its really sad because Santa Cruz County is probably the best place in all of California and I wish I could move back

[Ph64]

So the solution is to have governmental policy increase robotic employment's competitive advantage versus humans?

Yes. Then everyone can be jobless dependants either living on the streets of in govt housing, living off their socialized govt handouts... at least until the govt goes broke. It'll be their socialist utopia! Just look at Venezuela for their long term model. I'm sure the eventual "robot tax" will drive any remaining business out.

It'll solve the problem of people having to pick up dog poo. Mmmm... Tastes like chicken.
The human feces problem might get worse, not to worry though, the depopulation from disease will solve that in the long run.

[C-Mag]

Seattle spent a billion unaccountable tax dollars on the homeless issue over ten years.

.

Doesn't make sense................. why would anyone do this. What's in it for them ?

[DBTrek]

Seattle spent a billion unaccountable tax dollars on the homeless issue over ten years.

.

Doesn't make sense................. why would anyone do this. What's in it for them ?

A billion dollars was in it for them, for a problem that only got worse.
Yesterday $45million was in it for them, and again, when the situation worsens, they’ll simply take more.

Money.
That’s what’s in it for “them”.
Politicians and their special interest groups get richer.
Leftist get the smug satisfaction of striking able against the “rich”.
Everyone else gets the shaft.