2 Comments
User's avatar
Eric Brown's avatar

Surely the answer is both. Certainly, in Seattle, there's been an ongoing rise in rents across the metro area, which has been pricing out lower-income residents.

That being said, however, it's pretty obvious to me that a substantial portion of the homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs.

The existing homeless programs seem to do a fairly good job of helping the first category of homeless (i.e., basically well-adjusted people who have had financial problems) get back on their feet.

However, the "homeless NGO complex" in Seattle (and, from what I can tell, in San Francisco) refuses to admit that the second category of homeless even exists, and from what I can see, tries to use the same techniques for the first category with the second. And that's just not going to work.

Expand full comment
T. C.'s avatar

Mr. Brown, sorry for the delayed reply. I suspect you are right. And if I recall Shellenberger talked about the homeless NGO complex, or something like it. Thanks for the comment; they are always welcomed here.

Expand full comment