A community group is meeting to put together lunch sacks and care packs to distribute on the streets of Capitol Hill and beyond this weekend. HashtagLunchbag Seattle meets Sunday at Pike/Pine club the Rhino Room:
HashtagLunchBag Seattle – New Year’s Event
Happy 2016 everyone!!! Looking to start your year off by giving back to the community? Then come out and support this great cause by helping end hunger to the homeless community of Seattle! We’ve had an outstanding turn out the past two events and are looking to continue to grow and do great things for the homeless community as we recognize this is a growing issue.Due to the fact we are in the heart of our rainy season we are focusing on providing ponchos in each lunch bag we make. Any donation that you can make to help us provide these ponchos is greatly appreciated!
Every volunteer is asked to contribute $10 to participate. 100% of these funds go towards making the lunch bags. It is important you prepay as this will allow us to gauge how much food we buy. The more people, the more lunch bags we get to donate, it’s simple. :)
Please go to our EventBrite page to purchase tickets.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hashtaglunchbag-new-years-event-tickets-20900979392We are back at The Rhino Room on Capitol Hill. Please arrive 11AM sharp, and check in with Osiris to make sure we received your $10 donation. Assembly should be finished at the latest by 1pm, depending on how many lunch bags we’re able to prepare. Afterwards, we will break up into small groups and distribute the lunch bags throughout the city. These neighborhoods include Capitol Hill, Belltown, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square, International District, etc.
More about the event is here.
You can also assist local groups and organizations helping the homeless around Capitol Hill and Central Seattle — especially organizations like Community Lunch on Capitol Hill that provide ongoing assistance and services in the neighborhood. Let us know if there are more volunteer or donation opportunities we can add.
For more events on Capitol Hill and beyond, or to add your own, check out the CHS Calendar.
[ai1ec view=”stream” events_limit=”6″]
More enabling of the homeless issue. Mandatory mental assessment and job training should be bulk of helping the homeless.
Yes, it’s totally easy to receive work training if you haven’t eaten in a couple of days. It’s also a great state to be in to have your mental health judged.
There are many free food programs in Seattle. A homeless person can find a square meal 3 times a day, 7 days a week….if he/she wants to.
That is a nice gesture, you are forgiven for having it so much better. This stunt is all about feeling better about yourself.
Ever offer these bums a job? They say no, it’s easier to beg.
Give them a sandwich? They will take a bite and toss sit.
Give them clothes? See the piles of clothes laying around? Thanks, Someone has to clean it up.
They want freedom, no responsibility, no consequences, no job, no police, live off others, smoke weed, do heroin, smoke crack, drink alcohol, steal crap and keep doing it until FORCED to stop.
What you have they will steal and end up as junk in their camp site. You pay to clean it up, only for them to steal more stuff. As far as giving, Seattle is doing more than realized in that department. What these poor folks need is some disciplined direction in their life. Aka, a swift kick in the rear end to get it together.
Oh yes…. You probably want a solution instead. Vote wisely Seattle.
With almost no full-time, decent paying working- and middle-class non-technical jobs available in this city—which is the largest causes of the increase in homelessness—most are unable to get work. They’ve been applying for jobs for literally years, competing against people who are way overqualified for the shittiest jobs.
So yes, blame them for needing a swift kick in the rear. Tell yourself that they’re all drug users living a consequence free life, even when most aren’t drug users. Sure, some percentage fit into your little anger box; most don’t. And because people like you paint every single person with one broad brush, nothing gets done.
But you might like some new websites to check out, like Breitbart.com, FoxNews.com. They are full of ‘Mericans like yourself who want to stick it to those entitled veterans, working-class people, and the poor just because a few of them are bad apples.
We are a country with fewer safety nets in large part because of stereotypes like you describe. Welfare queens steal money. Homeless are unwilling to do anything. Since we can’t have 100% honesty in these programs, throw them all out and screw those legitimately in need. What an awesome country to imagine.
Sure. I bet the campers on Capitol Hill have a folder of resumes and rejection letters. Your false compassion is so ill informed. There are jobs for anyone willing to show up on time and do the task at hand. It may pay squat but every one of us have had one or more in our life. Prove me wrong. Ask a few about where and when they have looked for work. Nice to want to feel good by packing a lunch for folks. Food abounds in town. True wisdom not so much.
The word is out. Seattle knows how to treat its homeless population. “Hey everybody, lets go there!” It’s just like the big rock candy mountain.
Is there any actual evidence of those, or is this just a standard talking point?
No one would choose to be in Seattle during the winter versus, say, Santa Monica, which has a much more liberal tolerance for the homeless (or at least used to when I lived in Los Angeles). And better weather.
The homeless count from last week would seem to prove you wrong…almost 90% of the people counted are from King County. And 97% are from Washington State.
http://murray.seattle.gov/seattle-king-county-unsheltered-homelessness-continues-to-rise/
Your anecdotes are convincing. Actual data is more like 15% of the homeless fall into the “chronically homeless,” either through mental illness or freeloaders and those who are lazy and wish to just bum around because its’ an awesome lifestyle. So screw the 85%, right?
But you’re in crazy denial if you think “here are jobs for anyone willing to show up on time and do the task at hand”; jobs, maybe. Good jobs? Full-time jobs? Jobs outside of tech?
So let’s say you get a job, because work is better than not working. So you make $15/hour. But you can’t get a place because you can’t get the $1000 or more move-in costs, or at least you can’t for a month or more. So you’re still homeless, which is awesome if, say, you’re doing construction and need a place to store your tools. Or if you’re in an office and need to, say, shower. Or you need to be able to change your clothes. Like, basic things everyone takes for granted.
Funny how immigrants show up with nothing, take low pay jobs in restaurants, construction, labor, crowd 4 to a room, save money and even send some home – and make a life where their kids end up in college. Those on the streets of Capitol Hill want nothing to do with deferring gratification and responsible behaviors. Folks like you who dismiss human possibility and blame their failures on others are toxic in your own way.
Oh good lord.
Those immigrants also have an enormous support system of other immigrants, and programs intended to help immigrants, blah blah blah. The homeless, well, they have you and your attitude toward homelessness.
Again, you’re taking the image of the annoying street kid on Broadway and applying it to all homeless people. The data says that kid represents a small percentage of the overall homeless.
Privilege, I question your stats about the percentage of homeless who are “chronic.” (you say 15%), and about how many are drug & alcohol users. I believe that in both cases the percentage is much higher. Please provide documentation.
Posted the stats downthread.
Here’s one:
http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-in-america-2015
No full time jobs? Puget Sound ship builders and construction companies are hiring South Korean welders en amass because of a local shortage. Maybe We shouldn’t be teaching high school kids around here about self-esteem, social justice and poetry therapy, and teach them some actual skills.
“Amid A Shortage Of Welders, Some Prisons Offer Training”
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/07/437589596/amid-a-shortage-of-welders-some-prisons-offer-training
Sure, there’s a dearth of people with trades, and we should be promoting more trade schools over college. And nice dig at liberal arts education! Scoring points on the liberalism that gives you most of the things you probably enjoy in life! It’s what’s for breakfast.
So what do you do if you’re 30? 40? 50? Who pays for the homeless guy’s trade school? And it’s still hard to go to school when you’ve reached the point of being homeless.
You know, I moved to Seattle almost 25 years ago from the Bay Area and I recall the Reverend Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial Church telling his parishioners back then NOT to give money to the people on the street because in many cases, they were making more money than the donators/givers were. The situation can only have gotten worse over the years because I see the same people in the same spots hitting people up for money on the street and they don’t look hungry to me. Sorry but I am simply losing all sympathy for this group. I work hard for my money and I have to pay for my own groceries.
It’s well known that homeless people are pulling in six figure salaries. After all, it’s not amazon employees living in all of these rentals; it’s the homeless.
So is this blog now sharing audience with Breitbart? These are all wonderful right-wing talking points on display.
@Privilege: Oh, get off of your left-right paradigm platform. You will find that several of those people who are begging on Broadway are also living in subsidized housing and aren’t really homeless. The times they are a-changing, pal, and there are too many of us who are struggling to make it without expecting someone else (or the government) to take care of us. Grow up.
Oh, the luxurious subsidized housing. If “several” people exploit the system (by your own statistical analysis), by gosh we should condemn the entire system and stop help to all of those in need.
Yes, the times have changed. It used to be that people took care of each other, that neighbors would show up and help if someone lost a job, or maybe the bank was local and owned by people you could talk to about getting you past a tough time. Oh right, that was like 1940.
So since you’re struggling, everyone should struggle, or those worse off just die off? What a nice worldview!
But while we’re doing away with any help for the homeless, what other government programs should we dump? Should we do away with unemployment? Should we do away with food stamps? How about subsidized housing? Maybe do away with home loan tax deductions? How about dumping FEMA, and any sort of disaster help? How about dropping the VA, and loans for veterans? Maybe drop social security; old people should’ve saved enough without needing the government, right?
I doubt life is any worse now than 1940. Some people won’t take help and you can’t force them to take it.
In 1940, you could have the equivalent of a minimum wage job and still be able to afford a house in most urban areas.
White males also didn’t have to compete with women or minorities for jobs in 1940, since, you know, sexism and racism.
It’s hard to imagine how we’ve gotten to a point where handing out food to homeless people is somehow controversial and bad.
Some are more content with a beer. Like others have stated, there is lots of free food in town.
Have you ever heard of the phrase “enabling behavior”?
….last comment meant for Privilege, not boo.
It’s beholden on you to prove that food programs enable homelessness, and that the absence of these kinds of programs would result in the reduction or elimination of homelessness and not, you know, the death of a bunch of people. Or alternately, that homelessness increases with an increase in social programs; if Utah proved one thing, for example, is that proving housing reduced homelessness. Because, duh.
But your logic is saying that even if people were provided free housing, they would choose to remain homeless because, er, food programs?
The homeless you can see camping/sleeping on the street is only a fraction of the homeless population in Seattle. There are many thousands of others legitimately applying for housing and jobs… but the general population doesn’t know much about them because THEY DON’T SEE THEM. It’s a regretful consequence of “perception is reality.”
On another note, I’m starting to notice an interesting dichotomy. There seems to be a lot of contempt and scorn for those who make less the commenter (homeless=handout, etc.)… but at the same time, an indignation about those who make MORE than the commenter (tech folks ruining our neighborhood, pricing us out, etc.) Maybe they are the same people, maybe they are not, I really don’t know.
And at the same time, of course, people who fall into neither group.
Interesting….
And those who apply for jobs and housing ultimately get jobs and housing and are not homeless. Thus we don’t see them. Our focus and the issue is not those who are temporarily down on their luck but those who have made a decision to come to Seattle and live on the streets, who have zero intention of working, or complying with whatever requirements are in place to not be homeless.
How do you differentiate between the two? Programs intended for the “legit” homeless will ultimately be exploited by the chronic and “choice” homeless, and by focusing on that minority you impact the decisions made for the majority.
It’s the same tactic the right uses to cut all social programs. They focus on that “welfare queen” (typically black) who exploits the system and gets money for having more and more kids. They show the guy saying, “I got my Obama phone!” to mock entire programs intended to help poor people. They push drug testing for welfare recipients because of stories or ideas that people use welfare checks to buy drugs.
All they’re doing is giving more justifications for cutting these programs altogether. Most people want to help those in need, but since the narrative is continually pushed that the homeless have “zero intention of working,” they get cynical and every single person ends up negatively impacted, not just that one guy, or guys, or literally the 15% of all homeless who are temporarily in need.
You are exaggerating what people are saying here. No one is talking about dismantling all social programs (the food programs are important, for example). But to expand programs, and throw more and more money at them when the problem of homelessness in Seattle is clearly getting worse (as opposed to the USA as a whole, where it is decreasing) is not a very wise thing to do. Our current approach is just not working.
We are literally talking about a food program in this thread, and multiple people (including yourself) say this is enabling homelessness. There isn’t even talk of expanding programs, or whatever; it’s literally about whether giving out food makes people stay homeless.
“A homeless person can find a square meal 3 times a day, 7 days a week….if he/she wants to.”
You realize hunger is a serious problem in the inner cities of America, right? That it’s a significant cause of poor school results? Yet here you are, saying it’s not really a big deal, you can find food, it’s enabling people.
It seems like everyone puts forward that annoying ass begging for money in Cal Anderson as the face of the entire homeless problem. And you end up judging them all by his behavior, by his needs, by how he’s seemingly enabled by people throwing a buck his way. All I’m saying is to check out an actual shelter, check out the data that can be easily found on Google, and realize that the vast majority are poor and working-class families and people that are temporarily down-on-their luck.
@Privilege believes he knows a whole lot about the homeless and the world in general. He takes to task those of us who are not so sympathetic. I will totally agree that data is lacking and cliche’s are presented as facts with little to support them.
I get privilege and am so blessed. But some make excuses for those who don’t work – substance abuse, PTSD, thrown out by family and so on. Or by citing lack of support systems like immigrants have – when I used that example of people who succeed. Could it be that the folks on the street have a massive but perverse support system; one that enables and excuses their failings and taking from others? Could it be that they are not only not victims of rising rents, but have migrated to Seattle to take advantage of the uninformed among us who are paying the high rents, who are willing to part with a fiver in response to good street theater and deceptive signs? Could it be that these are chronic abusers of substances who make choices – choices that do not include employment, or relocating to where there may be better opportunities?
Capitol Hill is in transition because people have moved here in search of better opportunities, driving up rents in the process due to limited supplies. These same people will leave if and when their own opportunities are limited in Seattle due to the inevitable economic cycles that will impact them.
I think that @privilege and his ilk have a hard time conceiving that there are people who are not good people, who are not victims of others, who exercise choices like s/he does. And who are not being helped by those who care in any meaningful way, only being enabled and encouraged.
It is inhumane to use certain metaphors, but it may be apt to consider that pests like and want food and an agreeable environment. To get rid of pests, one eliminates the food supply and the welcoming environment. This causes less proliferation and reproduction of pests and they move on to better environments for them. We in Seattle, despite hundreds of millions of dollars and decades of declared good intention to eliminate homelessness, have achieved the opposite. That is in my view because the interventions have created a welcoming environment. We need to eliminate the welcome, enforce the laws on trespassing, car licencing, drug dealing, public inebriation and make it very difficult to thrive on our streets and jungles. Triage of children and the mentally ill is in order. But absent a concrete plan on your part and others privilege, that does not involve more of my money going down a rat hole, please publish your address and bank account routing number so you take this on with your brilliant ideas.
Data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States
Data:
http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-in-america-2015
Data:
https://www.usich.gov/goals/chronic
That was 30 seconds of Googling.
I know almost nothing about the homeless, beyond what I read. I’m not sure why I have to prove your own assertions on why people are homeless in Seattle, or whether people are moving here for our awesome handouts.
Logic would say Seattle’s weather would make it a shitty place to be homeless. Considering homeless counts are significantly higher (in absolute numbers, and even relative to population) in other states, the data implies otherwise. (It’s hard to imagine anyone moving to Seattle from Los Angeles or San Francisco specifically to live outdoors.) Recent increases in visible homeless could be higher rents/cost of living, they could be due to Seattle’s awesome homeless reputation, they could be a blip in long-term data and trends (which is showing a decrease, overall, nationally), or god knows what.
I’m well aware of bad actors, bad people, people who exploit the systems. That said, I’m not sure the fact there are bad actors, bad people, and people who exploit systems are reasons to eliminate systems, or mock systems, or to criticize people who are actively trying to help. It’s the same logic used by the gun lobby: “why that law wouldn’t stop all murders, so why bother?” All laws and all social policies fail the test of 100% success and efficacy. So what if someone is chronically homeless, doesn’t want to work, or just digs the dreadlocks you get from never washing your hair? Is that asshole a reason to tear down an entire support system?
Seriously, this is a story about people handing out bag lunches, yet to some people in this thread view this is as enabling people to remain homeless. That assertion would require some serious data to back up; it’s pretty simple: would you exchange an occasional free lunch for a regular bed to sleep in and a full-time job? Is that occasional free lunch the reason you stick around Seattle?
So let’s tear it all down. Shot down every soup kitchen and shelter, scattering the roaches. Some chronic homeless would probably find homes. But some chronic homeless would also die in the street, because some people are homeless because they’re literally unable to hold down a job. Dismissing PTSD, for example, pretty much sentences thousands of veterans to death. Is that really the country you want to live in? “Thanks for your service, now die?”
I have no plans for the homeless; I’m not required to have one, and it’s a crazy complex issue. But I can’t get behind “handing out free bag lunches enables and encourages people to be homeless in Seattle.” You see money going down a rat hole. You might be right.
But I’d choose throwing money down that rat hole and dealing with the aesthetics of seeing homeless kids (and some extra crime) over finding dead people lying on the street and telling the 85% of people aren’t chronically homeless sorry, you get to be a bit more miserable than, you know, the misery of being homeless.
Just a side note Privilege. I value your perspective and am rather confident that if you and I were to actually meet over a beer or coffee, that we would find a lot of shared concerns and agree on many points. I am pleased to see this topic getting the attention it warrants as it appears to be reaching critical mass. Too bad that a shooting was needed for the most recent attention to take place. I think I will sign off the thread for now.
The reality is that there is some truth to both points – there are real struggles out there, and people who need a hand up. There’s also people out there who abuse the system, who are in the vein of old-time flimflam men, bilking the pigeon out of a fiver. We’ve all met both.
However, the rubber meets the road when you take each conclusion to it’s logical end. The compassionate-yet-maybe-naive stance would end up helping people who need it, as well as occasionally rewarding the bad behavior of those who don’t. The firm-and-uncompromising-stance would punish those same flim-flam men, but also punish the families who need real help.
To me, it’s an easy choice: I’m willing to give my fiver to a lazy jerk if every other time my fiver goes to someone who needs it. I’m lucky enough to part with it in the first place. I’d rather land of the side of grace and naivete than sober-minded Teutonic harshness.
It’s that what America is all about?
What a sad thing it is to see other people using an article about a group that comes together to make bag lunches for the homeless as an opportunity to pile on and abuse kindhearted liberals!
If you can’t help a person who is less fortunate without using it as an opportunity to feel superior to them, then don’t help them.
But have some humility around those who give their time and money. You could easily have been one of the less fortunate but for the advantages you have had in your life!